Search

Objective We examined healthcare use among people using methamphetamine who were connected to a Community Health Centre (CHC) in Winnipeg, Canada. CHCs are primary care clinics designed to provide person-centred, holistic care to people who may be impacted by discrimination and/or oppression. Approach From population-based administrative health data, we identified people with a record of a methamphetamine-related healthcare system encounter from 2013-2020 (cases) and created a comparison group matched on age, sex, and postal code but with no recorded history of using methamphetamine (controls). We narrowed this population to those who visited a CHC at least once. Then, using negative binomial regression models adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, we produced rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals for primary care visits, CHC visits, emergency service contacts, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalizations in the 5 years after the first recorded methamphetamine use. Results Adjusted rate ratios showed that healthcare use among CHC-connected people using methamphetamine was higher than among CHC-connected people not using methamphetamine: primary care 1.15 (95% CI 1.07-1.23); CHC 1.17 (95% CI 1.01-1.37); emergency services 6.19 (95% CI 5.46-7.02); ED 3.19 (95% CI 2.92-3.48); hospitalization 2.77 (95% CI 2.46-3.10). Conclusion & Implications Being connected to a CHC may have facilitated access to other health and social services, but there is still unmet need for high quality, holistic care among people using methamphetamine. This research informs our team’s ongoing efforts to address mental health and addictions concerns across sectors and to promote anti-discriminatory approaches to addictions care in the healthcare system.

Abstract Background The re-conceptualization of patients’ and caregivers’ roles in research from study participants to co-researchers (“patient partners”) has led to growing pains within and outside the research community, such as how to effectively engage patients in research and as part of interdisciplinary teams. To support the growth of more successful research partnerships by developing a shared understanding of how patient partners conceptualize and contribute to their role, this study aimed to explore patient partners’ motivations for engagement and understanding of their role. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants (n = 13) of an online survey of activities and impacts of patient engagement in Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research projects. Eligibility criteria included being a patient partner that indicated interest in interview participation upon survey completion, the ability to read/write in English and provide informed consent. Data were analyzed thematically using an inductive, codebook thematic analysis. Results Illuminating the lived/living patient and caregiver experience was central to how most patient partners conceptualized the role in terms of its definition, purpose, value, and responsibilities. Participants also identified four additional categories of motivations for becoming a patient partner and contributions that patient partners make to research that build upon and are in addition to sharing their lived/living experiences. Lastly, participants highlighted important connotations of the term patient partner, including temporal and context-specific considerations for the term “patient” and what “partner” may imply about the nature of the research relationship. Conclusions At the onset of partnership, academic researchers and patient partners must create the space necessary to discuss and understand each other’s underlying motivations for partnering and their perspectives on the purpose, value, and responsibilities of the patient partner role. These early conversations should help unearth what research partners hope to get out of and feel that they are able to contribute to engaging, and in such contribute to the development of reciprocal relationships that work towards shared and valued goals. Trial registration Not applicable.

Plain English Summary The Canadian Institutes of Health Research developed the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) to help increase capacity for patient engagement in research. However, little is known about the ways in which Canadian patient co-researchers (i.e., patient partners) are being engaged in research and the perceived impacts of engagement. Therefore, this study aimed to describe engagement activities and perceived impacts of SPOR-funded projects. To do so, we carried out an online survey of academic researchers and patient partners engaging in projects funded through 13 SPOR funding calls. We analysed the collected data using thematic analysis, which focuses on finding themes among data. Sixty-six of 511 academic researchers and 20 of 28 patient partners contacted completed the survey and were included in analyses. We found that patient partners were engaged in seven types of activities across the research cycle: (a) sharing experiences/giving advice, (b) identifying the research focus/methods, (c) developing/revising aspects of the project, (d) conducting research activities, (e) study participation, (f) presenting on behalf of the project, and (g) other grant development or knowledge translation activities. We also found that engagement was associated with six different types of impacts related to knowledge, outputs, or directions being (a) created, (b) moulded, (c) confirmed, or (d) chosen/prioritized, (e) perceived success of the research, and (f) minimal/negative impacts on the research. The findings of this study can be used to inform ongoing and future research, including empowering patient partners to be more informed and actively shape how they may contribute to research processes.

Introduction Rising use of methamphetamine is causing significant public health concern in Canada. The biological and behavioural effects of methamphetamine range from wakefulness, vigour and euphoria to adverse physical health outcomes like myocardial infarction, haemorrhagic stroke, arrhythmia and seizure. It can also cause severe psychological complications such as psychosis. National survey data point to increasing rates of methamphetamine use, as well as increasing ease of access and serious methamphetamine-related harms. There is an urgent need for evidence to address knowledge gaps, provide direction to harm reduction and treatment efforts and inform health and social policies for people using methamphetamine. This protocol describes a study that aims to address this need for evidence.Methods The study will use linked, whole population, de-identified administrative data from the Manitoba Population Research Data Repository. The cohort will include individuals in the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, who came into contact with the health system for reasons related to methamphetamine use from 2013 to 2021 and a comparison group matched on age, sex and geography. We will describe the cohort’s sociodemographic characteristics, calculate incidence and prevalence of mental disorders associated with methamphetamine use and examine rates of health and social service use. We will evaluate the use of olanzapine pharmacotherapy in reducing adverse emergency department outcomes. In partnership with Indigenous co-investigators, outcomes will be stratified by First Nations and Métis identity.Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board, and access datasets have been granted by all data providers. We also received approval from the First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba’s Health Information Research Governance Committee and the Manitoba Métis Federation. Dissemination will be guided by an ‘Evidence 2 Action’ group of public rightsholders, service providers and knowledge users who will ensure that the analyses address the critical issues.

Objective To count and describe the elements that overlap (ie, present in two or more) and diverge between models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Our specific research question was ‘what are the elements that underlie models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research?’Design Scoping review.Data sources On 6–7 July 2021, we searched six electronic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and Google Scholar for published literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google, and key agencies’ websites for unpublished (ie, grey) literature, with no date restrictions. These searches were supplemented by snowball sampling.Eligibility criteria We included published and unpublished literature that presented (a) models or frameworks (b) of patient engagement (c) in health services research. We excluded articles unavailable as full text or not written in English.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from included articles using an a priori developed standardised form. Data were synthesised using both quantitative (ie, counts) and qualitative (ie, mapping) analyses.Results We identified a total of 8069 articles and ultimately included 14 models and frameworks in the review. These models and frameworks were comprised of 18 overlapping and 57 diverging elements, that were organised into six conceptual categories (ie, principles, foundational components, contexts, actions, levels and outcomes) and spanned intrapersonal, interpersonal, process, environmental, and health systems and outcomes domains.Conclusions There is little overlap between the elements that comprise existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Those seeking to apply these models and frameworks should consider the ‘fit’ of each element, by conceptual category and domain, within the context of their study.

Objective A multi-disciplinary E2A group was established as part of a linked administrative data study examining methamphetamine use in Manitoba. In this presentation we will share our experiences of establishing an E2A, embedding stakeholders in the research process, and outline an iterative engagement plan for the remaining study years. Approach The E2A group is led by two researchers with expertise in patient and public engagement and guided by Pal’s (2014) work on policy analysis and activation. Pal emphasizes a multidisciplinary and iterative process as the basis of a more inclusive approach to policy development for complex problems, such as the prevalence of methamphetamine use in Manitoba. Our goal in engaging public rightsholders, service providers and knowledge users in the research is to ensure that their first-hand knowledge and perspectives are reflected in the interpretations of the findings and that analyses address identified complexities in a culturally sensitive and equity-focused way. Results In the fall of 2020 E2A members were recruited, including persons with lived experience using methamphetamines and their families/care-givers, academics, clinicians, government, and non-government stakeholders. Training was provided on the topics of trauma-informed care, public engagement, effects of colonial and racist institutions, and cultural safety. The first E2A meetings co-developed guiding principles, a vision and mission, as well as provided capacity building around administrative data research. This work was done as a foundation for the next two years, wherein the group will make decisions about key variables (ie: between methamphetamine use and mental health), interpretation of results, knowledge mobilization, and policy development using an iterative self-evaluation process. To date challenges addressed included public health restrictions related to Covid-19 and adapting the research flow to centre lived-experience decision making. Conclusion The E2A group is a key component of this study and could serve as a model for other administrative data studies. The group prioritizes stakeholder knowledge, interprets results, flags potential biases in the data research process, and ensures the findings are relevant to the people they are meant to support.

Objectives To identify, critically appraise and summarise evidence on the impact of employing primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: family physicians/general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NP) and nurses with increased authority) in the emergency department (ED) triage, on patient flow outcomes.Methods We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) (inception to January 2020). Our primary outcome was the time to provider initial assessment (PIA). Secondary outcomes included time to triage, proportion of patients leaving without being seen (LWBS), length of stay (ED LOS), proportion of patients leaving against medical advice (LAMA), number of repeat ED visits and patient satisfaction. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality assessment tool.Results From 23 973 records, 40 comparative studies including 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 pre–post studies were included. PHCP interventions were led by NP (n=14), GP (n=3) or nurses with increased authority (n=23) at triage. In all studies, PHCP-led intervention effectiveness was compared with the traditional nurse-led triage model. Median duration of the interventions was 6 months. Study quality was generally low (confounding bias); 7 RCTs were classified as moderate quality. Most studies reported that PHCP-led triage interventions decreased the PIA (13/14), ED LOS (29/30), proportion of patients LWBS (8/10), time to triage (3/3) and repeat ED visits (5/6), and increased the patient satisfaction (8/10). The proportion of patients LAMA did not differ between groups (3/3). Evidence from RCTs (n=8) as well as other study designs showed a significant decrease in ED LOS favouring the PHCP-led interventions.Conclusions Overall, PHCP-led triage interventions improved ED patient flow metrics. There was a significant decrease in ED LOS irrespective of the study design, favouring the PHCP-led interventions. Evidence from well-designed high-quality RCTs is required prior to widespread implementation.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020148053.

Abstract Background The significance of patient and public engagement is increasingly recognized in health research, demonstrated by explicit requirements for patient and public engagement by funding agencies and journals. Such requirements have charged health researchers with leading patient and public engagement efforts, but evidence suggests that this practice is still evolving. Little research has explored the experiences and training needs of health researchers. This study aimed to establish a baseline understanding of the experiences, perceptions and training needs of health researchers in engaging patients and the public in health research in the context of Manitoba. Methods A cross-sectional 50-item questionnaire was distributed using a multi-phase purposive sampling strategy targeting health researchers in Manitoba, Canada. Data was summarized using frequencies, percentages and analyzed using chi-square testing. A local patient engagement advisory group was consulted at the interpretation stage of the study to obtain feedback and input on the findings and their implications. Results Responses from 53 health researchers were included. Most participants had engaged patients and the public in their own research (n = 43, 81.1%). Those who had engaged reported having some (n = 19, 44.2%), extensive (n = 14, 32.6%) or a little (n = 10, 23.3%) experience with this process. Most engaged at the levels of inform, consult or involve (81.3, 64.6 and 54.2% respectively), while fewer engaged at the collaborate (37.5%) or patient-directed levels (12.5%). Recruitment occurred using a number of approaches and engagement occurred at various phases of the research process, while main groups engaged were patients (n = 38, 82.6%) and families/caregivers (n = 25, 54.4%). Barriers to engaging patients and the public in health research included funding, time, compensation, logistics, recruitment, motivation at both the patient and researcher level, and skills of researchers to engage. Researchers reported an overwhelming need and interest for supports, funding and training to effectively engage patients and the public in health research. Consultation with the patient advisory group provided further insight on study findings and areas for future research. Conclusions Participating Manitoba health researchers engaged patients and the public in health research at multiple, but typically lower levels of involvement. Findings highlight the barriers to effective, authentic and meaningful patient and public engagement and support the need for targeted training, supports, funding and time for health researchers.

Objectives To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding.Design A scoping review.Data sources A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources.Eligibility criteria Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding.Methods We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages).Results From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either ‘within ED’ (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or ‘outside ED’ interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The ‘within ED’ and ‘outside ED’ interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively.Conclusions We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Plain English summary Patient engagement in research is an emerging approach that involves active and meaningful collaboration between researchers and patients throughout all phases of a project, including planning, data collection and analysis, and sharing of findings. To better understand the core features (elements) that underlie patient engagement, it is useful to have a look at models and frameworks that guide its conduct. Therefore, this manuscript aims to present a protocol for a scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Methods: Our protocol design is based on an established framework for conducting scoping reviews. We will identify relevant models and frameworks through systematic searches of electronic databases, websites, reference lists of included articles, and correspondence with colleagues and experts. We will include published and unpublished articles that present models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research and exclude those not in English or unavailable as full texts. Two reviewers will independently review abstracts and full texts of identified articles for inclusion and extract relevant data; a third reviewer will resolve discrepancies. Our primary objective is to count and describe elements of patient engagement that overlap (present in 2 or more) and diverge among included models and frameworks. Discussion: We hope this review will raise awareness of existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Further, by identifying elements that overlap and diverge between models and frameworks, this review will contribute to a clearer understanding of what patient engagement in research is and/or could be. Abstract Background: Patients can bring an expert voice to healthcare research through their lived experience of receiving healthcare services. Patient engagement in research is an emerging approach that challenges researchers to acknowledge and utilize this expertise through meaningful and active collaboration with patients throughout the research process. In order to facilitate a clearer understanding of the core elements that underlie patient engagement, it is useful to examine existing models and frameworks that guide its conduct. Therefore, the aim of this manuscript is to present a protocol for a scoping review of models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Methods: Drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s and Levac et al.’s framework for scoping reviews, we designed our protocol to identify relevant a) published articles through systematic searches of 7 electronic databases and snowball sampling and b) unpublished articles through systematic searches of databases and websites and snowball sampling. We will include published and unpublished models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research and exclude those not in English or unavailable as full texts. Two reviewers will independently screen the abstracts and full texts of identified articles for inclusion and extract relevant data; a third reviewer will resolve disagreements. We will conduct a descriptive analysis of the characteristics (i.e., elements underlying patient engagement and those related to the study authors, publication, and model/framework) of included articles and a narrative analysis of the data concerning elements of the model or framework. Our primary objective is to count and describe elements of patient engagement that overlap (present in ≥ 2) and diverge (present in

Abstract Background The concept of patient engagement in health research has received growing international recognition over recent years. Yet despite some critical advancements, we argue that the concept remains problematic as it negates the very real complexities and context of people’s lives. Though patient engagement conceptually begins to disrupt the identity of “researcher,” and complicate our assumptions and understandings around expertise and knowledge, it continues to essentialize the identity of “patient” as a homogenous group, denying the reality that individuals’ economic, political, cultural, subjective and experiential lives intersect in intricate and multifarious ways. Discussion Patient engagement approaches that do not consider the simultaneous interactions between different social categories (e.g. race, ethnicity, Indigeneity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, ability, immigration status, religion) that make up social identity, as well as the impact of systems and processes of oppression and domination (e.g. racism, colonialism, classism, sexism, ableism, homophobia) exclude the involvement of individuals who often carry the greatest burden of illness — the very voices traditionally less heard in health research. We contend that in order to be a more inclusive and meaningful approach that does not simply reiterate existing health inequities, it is important to reconceptualize patient engagement through a health equity and social justice lens by incorporating a trauma-informed intersectional analysis. Summary This article provides key concepts to the incorporation of a trauma-informed intersectional analysis and important questions to consider when developing a patient engagement strategy in health research training, practice and evaluation. In redefining the identity of both “patient” and “researcher,” spaces and opportunities to resist and renegotiate power within the intersubjective relations can be recognized and addressed, in turn helping to build trust, transparency and resiliency — integral to the advancement of the science of patient engagement in health research.