Search

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that was intentionally designed and manufactured as reusable, including gowns, goggles, face shields, and elastomeric respirators, took on a heightened role during the pandemic. Healthcare workers who had access to these products and infrastructure for cleaning and sterilizing them had a greater sense of confidence to undertake their jobs due to an increased sense of personal safety. Using multiple data sources, including a literature review, roundtables, interviews, surveys, and Internet-based research, the project team investigated the impact of disposable PPE and role of reusable PPE during the pandemic in Canada. This research supports the claim that adopting and supporting reusable PPE systems throughout the health sector can, if used appropriately on an ongoing basis, provide continuous access to reusable PPE while also contributing many co-benefits, including lower costs, domestic jobs, and improved environmental performance such as reduced waste and greenhouse gas emissions.

Background: Health research agendas are often set by researchers or by industry and may not reflect the needs and priorities of end users. This priority-setting partnership (PSP) for epilepsy was undertaken to identify the most pressing unanswered questions about epilepsy and seizures from the perspective of people with epilepsy (PWE) and their care providers., Methods: Using the methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance (JLA), evidence uncertainties were gathered via online surveys from stakeholders across Canada. Submissions were formed into summary questions and checked against existing evidence to determine if they were true uncertainties. Verified uncertainties were then ranked by patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers and a final workshop was held to reach a consensus on the top 10 priorities., Results: The final top 10 list reflects the priority areas of focus for research as identified by the Canadian epilepsy community, including genetic markers for diagnosis and treatment, concerns about living with the long-term effects of epilepsy, and addressing knowledge gaps in etiology and treatment approaches., Conclusion: This project represents the first systematic evidence of patient- and clinician-centered research priorities for epilepsy. The results of this priority-setting exercise provide an opportunity for researchers and funding agencies to align their agendas with the values and needs of the epilepsy community in order to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) for PWE., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of the Canadian Anesthesia Research Priority Setting Partnership (CAR PSP) was to identify a top ten list of shared priorities for research in anesthesia and perioperative care in Canada., Methods: We used the methods of the James Lind Alliance to involve patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and researchers in determining the research priorities in Canada. In a first survey, participants submitted questions that they want research to answer about anesthesia and perioperative care. We summarized those responses into a longlist of questions. We reviewed the literature to see if any of those questions were already answered. In a second survey, participants chose up to ten questions from the longlist that they thought were most important to be answered with research. From that list, the highest ranking questions were discussed and assigned a final rank at an in-person workshop., Results: A total of 254 participants submitted 574 research suggestions that were then summarized into 49 questions. Those questions were checked against the literature to be sure they were not already adequately addressed, and in a second survey of those 49 questions, participants chose up to 10 that they thought were most important. A total of 233 participants submitted their priorities, which were then used to choose 24 questions for discussion at the final workshop. At the final workshop, 22 participants agreed on a top ten list of priorities., Conclusion: The CAR PSP top ten priorities reflect a wide variety of priorities captured by a broad spectrum of Canadians who receive and provide anesthesia care. The priorities are a tool to initiate and guide patient-oriented research in anesthesia and perioperative care.

Objectives: To engage persons with dementia, friends, family, caregivers, and health and social care providers to identify and prioritize their questions for research related to living with dementia and prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of dementia., Design: The Canadian Dementia Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) followed James Lind Alliance PSP methods. Results were compared with the World Health Organization research prioritization exercise and the United Kingdom Dementia PSP., Setting: Canada., Participants: In the first survey, 1,217 individuals and groups from across Canada submitted their questions about dementia. 249 participated in the interim prioritization. For the final prioritization workshop, the 28 participants included persons with dementia, friends, family, caregivers, health and social care providers, Alzheimer Society representatives, and members of an organization representing long-term care home residents., Results: The Canadian Dementia PSP top 10 priorities relate to health, quality of life, societal issues, and dementia care. Five priorities overlap with one or both of the other two prioritization initiatives., Conclusion: These results provide researchers and research funding agencies with topics that individuals with personal or professional experience of dementia prioritize, but they are not intended to preclude research into other aspects of dementia., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society.)

Purpose: Many oncology clinical trials departments (CTDs) are in serious fiscal deficit and their sustainability is in jeopardy. This study investigates whether the payment models used to fund industry versus cooperative group trials contribute to the fiscal deficit of a CTD., Methods: We examined the lifetime costs of all cooperative group and industry trials activated in the CTD of a cancer center between 2007 and 2011. A trial's lifetime is defined as being from the date the first patient was accrued until the last patient's actual or projected final follow-up visit. For each trial, we calculated the lifetime monthly net income, which was defined as monthly revenue minus monthly costs. Data sources included study protocols, trial budgets, and accrual data., Results: Of the 97 trials analyzed, 64 (66%) were cooperative group trials. The pattern of lifetime net income for cooperative group trials has a positive peak during patient accrual followed by a negative trough during follow-up. In contrast, the pattern for industry trials resembled an "l" shape. The patterns reflect the differing payment models: upfront lump-sum payments (cooperative group) versus milestone payments (industry)., Conclusion: The negative trough in the lifetime net income of a cooperative group trial occurs because follow-up costs are typically not funded or are underfunded. CTDs accrue more patients in new trials to offset that deficit. The CTD uses revenue from accrual to existing trials to cross-subsidize past trials in follow-up. As the number of patients on follow-up increases, the fiscal deficit grows larger each year, perpetuating the cycle.