Search

Abstract Background Theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) are useful when implementing, evaluating and sustaining healthcare evidence-based interventions. Yet it can be challenging to identify an appropriate TMF for an implementation project. We developed and tested the usability of an online tool to help individuals who are doing or supporting implementation practice activities to identify appropriate models and/or frameworks to inform their work. Methods We used methods guided by models and evidence on implementation science and user-centered design. Phases of tool development included applying findings from a scoping review of TMFs and interviews with 24 researchers/implementers on barriers and facilitators to identifying and selecting TMFs. Based on interview findings, we categorized the TMFs by aim, stage of implementation, and target level of change to inform the tool’s algorithm. We then conducted interviews with 10 end-users to test the usability of the prototype tool and administered the System Usability Scale (SUS). Usability issues were addressed and incorporated into the tool. Results We developed Find TMF, an online tool consisting of 3–4 questions about the user’s implementation project. The tool’s algorithm matches key characteristics of the user’s project (aim, stage, target change level) with characteristics of different TMFs and presents a list of candidate models/frameworks. Ten individuals from Canada or Australia participated in usability testing (mean SUS score 84.5, standard deviation 11.4). Overall, participants found the tool to be simple, easy to use and visually appealing with a useful output of candidate models/frameworks to consider for an implementation project. Users wanted additional instruction and guidance on what to expect from the tool and how to use the information in the output table. Tool improvements included incorporating an overview figure outlining the tool steps and output, displaying the tool questions on a single page, and clarifying the available functions of the results page, including adding direct links to the glossary and to complementary tools. Conclusions Find TMF is an easy-to-use online tool that may benefit individuals who support implementation practice activities by making the vast number of models and frameworks more accessible, while also supporting a consistent approach to identifying and selecting relevant TMFs.

The Royal Society of Canada Working Group on Health Research System Recovery developed actionable recommendations for organizations to implement to strengthen Canada’s health research system. Recommendations were based on input from participants from G7 countries and Australia and New Zealand. Participants included health research funding agency leaders; research institute leaders; health, public health, and social care policy-makers; researchers; and members of the public. The recommendations were categorized using the World Health Organization’s framework for health research systems and include governance/stewardship: (1) Outline research logistics as part of emergency preparedness to streamline research in future pandemics. (2) Embed equity and inclusion in all research processes. (3) Facilitate streamlined, inclusive, and rigorous processes for grant application preparation and review. (4) Create knowledge mobilization infrastructure to support the generation and use of evidence. (5) Coordinate research efforts across local, provincial, national, and international entities. Financing: (6) Reimagine the funding of health research. Capacity building: (7) Invest in formative training opportunities rooted in equity, diversity, and anti-racism. (8) Support researchers’ career development throughout their career span. (9) Support early career researchers to establish themselves. Producing and using research: (10) Strengthen Indigenous health research and break down systemic barriers to its conduct. (11) Develop mechanisms to produce novel research. (12) Enhance research use across the health research ecosystem.

Abstract Background The concept of intersectionality proposes that demographic and social constructs intersect with larger social structures of oppression and privilege to shape experiences. While intersectionality is a widely accepted concept in feminist and gender studies, there has been little attempt to use this lens in implementation science. We aimed to supplement the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), a commonly used framework in implementation science, to support the incorporation of intersectionality in implementation science projects by (1) integrating an intersectional lens to the CFIR; and (2) developing a tool for researchers to be used alongside the updated framework. Methods Using a nominal group technique, an interdisciplinary framework committee (n = 17) prioritized the CFIR as one of three implementation science models, theories, and frameworks to supplement with intersectionality considerations; the modification of the other two frameworks are described in other papers. The CFIR subgroup (n = 7) reviewed the five domains and 26 constructs in the CFIR and prioritized domains and constructs for supplementation with intersectional considerations. The subgroup then iteratively developed recommendations and prompts for incorporating an intersectional approach within the prioritized domains and constructs. We developed recommendations and prompts to help researchers consider how personal identities and power structures may affect the facilitators and inhibitors of behavior change and the implementation of subsequent interventions. Results We achieved consensus on how to apply an intersectional lens to CFIR after six rounds of meetings. The final intersectionality supplemented CFIR includes the five original domains, and 28 constructs; the outer systems and structures and the outer cultures constructs were added to the outer setting domain. Intersectionality prompts were added to 13 of the 28 constructs. Conclusion Through an expert-consensus approach, we modified the CFIR to include intersectionality considerations and developed a tool with prompts to help implementation users apply an intersectional lens using the updated framework.

Objective To describe stakeholder characteristics and perspectives about experiences, challenges and information needs related to the use of environmental scans (ESs).Design Cross-sectional study.Setting and participants A web-based survey platform was used to disseminate an online survey to stakeholders who had experience with conducting ESs in a health services delivery context (eg, researchers, policy makers, practitioners). Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. The survey was disseminated internationally, was available in English and French, and remained open for 6 weeks (15 October to 30 November 2022).Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics and experiences of stakeholders. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-text questions.Results Of 47 participants who responded to the survey, 94% were from Canada, 4% from the USA and 2% from Australia. Respondents represented academic institutions (57%), health agency/government (32%) and non-government organisations or agencies (11%). Three themes were identified: (a) having a sense of value and utility; (b) experiencing uncertainty and confusion; and (c) seeking guidance. The data suggest stakeholders found value and utility in ESs and conducted them for varied purposes including to: (a) enhance knowledge, understanding and learning about the current landscape or state of various features of health services delivery (eg, programmes, practices, policies, services, best practices); (b) expose needs, service barriers, challenges, gaps, threats, opportunities; (c) help guide action for planning, policy and programme development; and (d) inform recommendations and decision-making. Stakeholders also experienced conceptual, methodological and practical barriers when conducting ESs, and expressed a need for methodological guidance delivered through published guidelines, checklists and other means.Conclusion ESs have value and utility for addressing health services delivery concerns, but conceptual and methodological challenges exist. Further research is needed to help advance the ES as a distinct design that provides a systematic approach to planning and conducting ESs.

Abstract Background Few training opportunities or resources for non-expert implementers focus on the “practice” as opposed to the “science” of knowledge translation (KT). As a guide for novice implementers, we present an open-access, fillable workbook combining KT theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) that are commonly used to support the implementation of evidence-based practices. We describe the process of creating and operationalizing our workbook. Methods Our team has supported more than 1000 KT projects and 300 teams globally to implement evidence-based interventions. Our stakeholders have consistently highlighted their need for guidance on how to operationalize various KT TMFs to support novice implementers in “practising” KT. In direct response to these requests, we created a pragmatic, fillable KT workbook. The workbook was designed by KT scientists and experts in the fields of adult education, graphic design, and usability and was piloted with novice implementers. It is rooted in an integrated KT approach and applies an intersectionality lens, which prompts implementers to consider user needs in the design of implementation efforts. Results The workbook is framed according to the knowledge-to-action model and operationalizes each stage of the model using appropriate theories or frameworks. This approach removes guesswork in selecting appropriate TMFs to support implementation efforts. Implementers are prompted to complete fillable worksheets that are informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, the Behaviour Change Wheel, the Effective Practice and Organization of Care framework, Proctor’s operationalization framework, the Durlak and DuPre process indicators, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. As they complete the worksheets, users are guided to apply theoretically rooted approaches in planning the implementation and evaluation of their evidence-based practice. Conclusions This workbook aims to support non-expert implementers to use KT TMFs to select and operationalize implementation strategies to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices. It provides an accessible option for novice implementers who wish to use KT methods to guide their work.

Abstract Background Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I 2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I 2 = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I 2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I 2 = 21%). Conclusions KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the spread of misinformation worldwide. The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of misinformation and preferred sources of obtaining COVID-19 information from those living in Canada. In particular, we sought to explore the perceptions of East Asian individuals in Canada, who experienced stigma related to COVID-19 messaging. Methods We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis study. Interviews were offered in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. Interviewers probed for domains related to knowledge about COVID-19, preferred sources of information, perceived barriers and facilitators of misinformation, and preferences for communication during a health emergency. Interviews were recorded, translated, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a framework approach. Transcripts were independently double-coded until > 60% agreement was reached. This study received research ethics approval. Results Fifty-five interviews were conducted. The majority of participants were women (67%); median age was 52 years. 55% of participants were of East-Asian descent. Participants obtained information about COVID-19 from diverse English and non-English sources including news media, government agencies or representatives, social media, and personal networks. Challenges to seeking and understanding information included: encountering misinformation, making sense of evolving or conflicting public health guidance, and limited information on topics of interest. 65% of participants reported encountering COVID-19 misinformation. East Asian participants called on government officials to champion messaging to reduce stigmatizing and racist rhetoric and highlighted the importance of having accessible, non-English language information sources. Participants provided recommendations for future public health communications guidance during health emergencies, including preferences for message content, information messengers, dissemination platforms and format of messages. Almost all participants preferred receiving information from the Canadian government and found it helpful to utilize various mediums and platforms such as social media and news media for future risk communication, urging for consistency across all platforms. Conclusions We provide insights on Canadian experiences navigating COVID-19 information, where more than half perceived encountering misinformation on platforms when seeking COVID-19 information . We provide recommendations to inform public health communications during future health emergencies.

Knowledge translation (KT) is the science and practice of dissemination and implementation of evidence. We describe how research funders operationalize and evaluate KT initiatives, identify challenges and opportunities, and suggest strategic considerations for KT support. We conducted an environmental scan, which included a systematic search of published and grey literature and a focus group with Canadian funders. A total of 130 published articles and 2415 grey literature sources were screened; 212 unique data sources were included. Published literature commonly described KT initiatives related to “KT practice and science funding.” These initiatives commonly provided funds for infrastructure development (e.g., clinical technologies, database subscriptions) to facilitate translational or applied research to address regional health priorities. Of the articles, 44% outlined an evaluation plan; few provided validated KT metrics. In the grey literature, 364 initiatives were described; the most commonly described initiatives related to “exchange and integrated KT.” Focus group participants hoped to see increased resources to support KT, exchange opportunities with policy/decision-makers, and evaluate KT initiatives. Funders completed various KT initiatives, which tended to engage stakeholders to set research priorities, collaborate with a range of stakeholders, build KT capacity, and mandate KT requirements. We provide six considerations for funders to support KT.

BackgroundClear, accurate, and transparent risk communication is critical to providing policy makers and the public with directions to effectively implement public health strategies during a health emergency. ObjectiveWe aimed to explore the public’s preferred sources of obtaining COVID-19 information, perceptions on the prevalence and drivers of misinformation during the pandemic, and suggestions to optimize health communications during future public health emergencies. MethodsWe administered a web-based survey that included Likert scale, multiple choice and open-ended response questions to residents of Ontario, Canada. We aimed to recruit a sample that reflected population diversity with respect to age and gender. Data were collected between June 10, 2020, and December 31, 2020, and were analyzed using descriptive statistics; open-ended data were analyzed using content analysis. Subgroup analyses to explore perceptions by age and gender were conducted using ordinal regression. ResultsA total of 1823 individuals participated in the survey (n=990, 54% women; n=703, 39% men; n=982, 54% aged 18-40 years; n=518, 28% aged 41-60 years; and n=215, 12% aged ≥61 years). Participants most commonly obtained COVID-19 information from local television news (n=1118, 61%) followed by social media (n=938, 51%), national or international television news (n=888, 49%), and friends and family (n=835, 46%). Approximately 55% (n=1010) of the participants believed they had encountered COVID-19–related misinformation; 70% (n=1284) of the participants reported high levels of trust in health authority websites and health care providers; 66% (n=1211) reported high levels of trust in health ministers or public health organizations. Sources perceived to be less trustworthy included friends and family, talk radio, social media, as well as blogs and opinion websites. Men were more likely to report encountering misinformation and to trust friends or family (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.24-1.79) and blogs or opinion websites (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03-1.50), compared to women. Compared to those aged 18-40 years, participants aged ≥41years were more likely to trust all assessed information sources, with the exception of web-based media sources, and less likely to report encountering misinformation. Of those surveyed, 58% (n=1053) had challenges identifying or appraising COVID-19 information. ConclusionsOver half of our participants perceived that they had encountered COVID-19 misinformation, and 58% had challenges identifying or appraising COVID-19 information. Gender and age differences in perceptions of misinformation and trust in information sources were observed. Future research to confirm the validity of these perceptions and to explore information-seeking patterns by population subgroups may provide useful insights on how to optimize health communication during public health emergencies.

Abstract Women and gender-diverse individuals have faced disproportionate socioeconomic burden during COVID-19. There have been reports of greater negative mental health changes compared to men based on cross-sectional research that has not accounted for pre-COVID-19 differences. We compared mental health changes from pre-COVID-19 to during COVID-19 by sex or gender. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator) were searched to August 30, 2021. Eligible studies included mental health symptom change data by sex or gender. 12 studies (10 unique cohorts) were included, all of which reported dichotomized sex or gender data. 9 cohorts reported results from March to June 2020, and 2 of these also reported on September or November to December 2020. One cohort included data pre-November 2020 data but did not provide dates. Continuous symptom change differences were not statistically significant for depression (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12, 95% CI -0.09–0.33; 4 studies, 4,475 participants; I2 = 69.0%) and stress (SMD = − 0.10, 95% CI -0.21–0.01; 4 studies, 1,533 participants; I2 = 0.0%), but anxiety (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.07–0.22; 4 studies, 4,344 participants; I2 = 3.0%) and general mental health (SMD = 0.15, 95% CI 0.12–0.18; 3 studies, 15,692 participants; I2 = 0.0%) worsened more among females/women than males/men. There were no significant differences in changes in proportions above cut-offs: anxiety (difference = − 0.05, 95% CI − 0.20–0.11; 1 study, 217 participants), depression (difference = 0.12, 95% CI -0.03–0.28; 1 study, 217 participants), general mental health (difference = − 0.03, 95% CI − 0.09–0.04; 3 studies, 18,985 participants; I2 = 94.0%), stress (difference = 0.04, 95% CI − 0.10–0.17; 1 study, 217 participants). Mental health outcomes did not differ or were worse by small amounts among women than men during early COVID-19.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to stigmatization of individuals based on race/ethnicity, age, gender, and occupation, among other factors. We canvassed Canadian residents to explore perceptions of and experiences with stigma during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe conducted an online survey between June 10 and December 31 2020. The survey was rooted in the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework and included multiple choice, Likert and open-ended questions related to perceived and experienced stigma. Residents of Ontario, Canada were eligible to participate and we aimed to recruit a sample that was diverse by race/ethnicity and age.ResultsA total of 1,823 individuals participated in the survey (54% women, 39% men; 54% 18–40 years old, 28% 41–60 years old, 12% 61+ years old; 33% White, 26% East/SouthEast Asian, 14% Black, 12% South Asian). Fifty-one percent of participants agreed/strongly agreed that racist views had increased toward certain racial/ethnic groups in Canada during the pandemic. Participants perceived that people in Canada were stigmatized during the pandemic because of race/ethnicity (37%), political beliefs (26%), older age (24%), being a healthcare worker (23%), younger age (22%), being an essential worker (21%), and gender (11%). Thirty-nine percent of respondents feared experiencing and 37% experienced stigmatization during the pandemic. Men, individuals aged 18–40, and racialized participants were more likely to fear or experience stigma. With respect to health behaviors, 74, 68, and 59% of respondents were comfortable masking in public, seeking medical care if they became ill, and getting tested for COVID-19, respectively. Men were less likely to indicate comfort with mask wearing or seeking medical care. Participants aged 18–40 and Black participants were less likely to indicate comfort with all three behaviors compared to those over age 41 and White participants, respectively. South Asian participants were less likely to be comfortable seeking medical care compared to White Participants.DiscussionParticipants feared or experienced stigmatization towards various demographic characteristics during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is critical that the factors driving stigma during health emergencies in Canada be better understood in order to develop effective public health messaging and interventions.

BackgroundStigmatisation, misinformation and discrimination have been magnified globally due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The healthcare sector was not spared from this. We conducted a transnational study, using the Health Stigma and Discrimination framework (HSDF) to explore public perception and reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic in a multicultural context. Findings from the Asian arm of the study, sited in Singapore, are reported in this paper.MethodsThis phenomenological research deployed semi-structured informant interviews using non-probability sampling approaches to recruit members of the public. Interviews were coded independently by two researchers and thematic analysis was used to analyse the responses.ResultsTwenty-nine members of the public (23–80 years old) were interviewed between Oct 2020 to Feb 2021. Five major themes were identified: (i) perception of stigma amongst respondents, (ii) experiences of stigma amongst respondents, (iii) views on what drove stigma and misinformation, (iv) facilitators in preventing and reducing stigma and misinformation, and (v) ageist attitudes towards older adults. Overall, construction workers living in dormitories, healthcare workers, and to some extent tourists from China, were perceived to have been stigmatised and shunned by the public. Place-based stigmatisation was common; participants responded by avoiding places that had confirmed cases of COVID-19. Perceived stigma was temporary and not enduring, driven at the outset by fear of being infected. This study also identified the role played by trust in reducing stigmatisation. The relative absence of politicising of issues and high-quality information readily disseminated to the public were reported as factors that could have reduced and prevented stigma and misinformation on the various groups. Ageist attitudes were observed in some participants with older adults being labelled as vulnerable, susceptible to misinformation and being less able to cope during the pandemic.ConclusionThrough the lens of the HSDF, this study provided an exploratory account of the nature of stigma that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic in an Asian context. It also shed light on facilitators in preventing and reducing stigma during an outbreak especially the role of trust and communications during a public health crisis.

Background: In November 2011, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care released guidelines for screening women at average breast cancer risk. Weak recommendations (framed using GRADE methodology) were made for screening women aged 50 to 74 years every two to three years, and for not screening women aged 40 to 49 years. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using administrative data to examine bilateral mammography use before and after a release of a national breast screening guideline. Women aged 40 to 74 years living in Ontario or Alberta from 30th November 2008 to 30th November 2014 were included. Strata included age, region of residence, neighbourhood income quintile, immigration status, and education level. Results: In both provinces, mammography use rates were lower in the post-intervention period (527 vs. 556 and 428 vs. 465/1000 women in Ontario and Alberta, respectively). In Ontario, mammography trends decreased following guideline release to align with recommendations for women aged 40 to 74 (decrease of 2.21/1000 women, SE 0.26/1000, p Conclusions: We observed a decrease in screening for women aged 40-49. Additional research to explore whether shared decision making was used to optimize guideline-concordant screening for women aged 50-74 is needed.

Canada has made great progress in synthesizing, disseminating, and integrating research findings into health systems and clinical decision-making; yet gaps exist in the research-to-practice continuum. The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance aims to help close gaps by providing decision-makers with evidence that is timely, context sensitive, and demand driven to better inform patient-oriented practices and policies in health systems. In this article, we introduce a model established in Canada to support decision-maker needs for high-quality evidence that is patient oriented to enhance health systems performance. We provide an overview of how this model was implemented, who is involved, who it serves, as well as its organizational structure and remit. We discuss key milestones achieved to date and the impact this initiative has made within the health research community. The strength of the SPOR Evidence Alliance lies in its unique ability to simultaneously: (i) serve as a national platform for researchers to stay connected and collaborate to minimize duplication of efforts and (ii) facilitate access to research knowledge for patient partners and decision-makers. In doing so, the SPOR Evidence Alliance is supporting health policy and practice decisions that support and strengthen Canada’s dynamic health systems.

Background: In November 2011, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care released guidelines for screening women at average breast cancer risk. Weak recommendations (framed using GRADE methodology) were made for screening women aged 50 to 74 years every two to three years, and for not screening women aged 40 to 49 years. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using administrative data to examine bilateral mammography use before and after a release of a national breast screening guideline. Women aged 40 to 74 years living in Ontario or Alberta from 30th November 2008 to 30th November 2014 were included. Strata included age, region of residence, neighbourhood income quintile, immigration status, and education level. Results: In both provinces, mammography use rates were lower in the post-intervention period (527 vs. 556 and 428 vs. 465/1000 women in Ontario and Alberta, respectively). In Ontario, mammography trends decreased following guideline release to align with recommendations for women aged 40 to 74 (decrease of 2.21/1000 women, SE 0.26/1000, p

Plain English Summary Patient-oriented research (POR) is the meaningful inclusion of patients as active contributing partners in research. In meaningful POR, patients are engaged and valued as contributory members of the research team throughout the research process, from developing research questions, participating in research activities, to sharing new research findings. In Canada, POR is recognized as an important component of research and many healthcare institutions aim to engage patients in their work. However, there is little guidance on how patients and researchers can effectively participate as equal partners in research activities. To address the need for POR education opportunities, we launched Partners in Research (PiR), a 2–month online course for patients and researchers to learn how to conduct and engage in POR. This paper describes the design, delivery, and evaluation of the PiR course, with a focus on the following objectives: (1) To assess the impact of the PiR course on participant knowledge, confidence, intentions and use of POR (2) To determine the quality of course design and delivery and its ability to achieve learning objectives (3) To identify factors that limit and facilitate participation in POR The findings from the evaluation show that the PiR course was effective in increasing knowledge of, and confidence in POR concepts. In addition, the course was well-received, with participants reporting a high level of engagement in course content and activities. Overall, this work supports our understanding of how to design useful and engaging opportunities to increase patient and researcher capacity in POR.

Background: The interval between suspected cancer and diagnosis for symptomatic patients is often fragmented, leading to diagnosis delays and increased patient stress. We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to explore barriers and facilitators to implementing and sustaining current initiatives across Canada that optimize early cancer diagnosis, with particular relevance for symptomatic patients. Methods: The national study included a document review and key informant interviews with purposefully recruited participants. Data were analyzed by two researchers using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-two participants from eight provinces participated in key informant interviews and reported on 17 early cancer diagnosis initiatives. Most initiatives (88%) were in early phases of implementation. Two patient-facing and eight provider/organization barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources) and five facilitators for implementation and sustainability were identified. Opportunities to improve early cancer diagnosis initiatives included building relationships with stakeholders, co-creating initiatives, developing initiatives for Indigenous and underserved populations, optimizing efficiency and sustainability, and standardizing metrics to evaluate impact. Conclusion: Early cancer diagnosis initiatives in Canada are in early implementation phases. Lack of stakeholder buy-in and limited resources pose a challenge to sustainability. We present opportunities for funders and policymakers to optimize the use and potential impact of early cancer diagnosis initiatives.

BackgroundDisproportionate risks of COVID-19 in congregate care facilities including long-term care homes, retirement homes, and shelters both affect and are affected by SARS-CoV-2 infections among facility staff. In cities across Canada, there has been a consistent trend of geographic clustering of COVID-19 cases. However, there is limited information on how COVID-19 among facility staff reflects urban neighborhood disparities, particularly when stratified by the social and structural determinants of community-level transmission. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the concentration of cumulative cases by geography and social and structural determinants across 3 mutually exclusive subgroups in the Greater Toronto Area (population: 7.1 million): community, facility staff, and health care workers (HCWs) in other settings. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational study using surveillance data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases (January 23 to December 13, 2020; prior to vaccination rollout). We derived neighborhood-level social and structural determinants from census data and generated Lorenz curves, Gini coefficients, and the Hoover index to visualize and quantify inequalities in cases. ResultsThe hardest-hit neighborhoods (comprising 20% of the population) accounted for 53.87% (44,937/83,419) of community cases, 48.59% (2356/4849) of facility staff cases, and 42.34% (1669/3942) of other HCW cases. Compared with other HCWs, cases among facility staff reflected the distribution of community cases more closely. Cases among facility staff reflected greater social and structural inequalities (larger Gini coefficients) than those of other HCWs across all determinants. Facility staff cases were also more likely than community cases to be concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods (Gini 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.38 vs 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) with a higher household density (Gini 0.23, 95% CI 0.17-0.29 vs 0.17, 95% CI 0.12-0.22) and with a greater proportion working in other essential services (Gini 0.29, 95% CI 0.21-0.40 vs 0.22, 95% CI 0.17-0.28). ConclusionsCOVID-19 cases among facility staff largely reflect neighborhood-level heterogeneity and disparities, even more so than cases among other HCWs. The findings signal the importance of interventions prioritized and tailored to the home geographies of facility staff in addition to workplace measures, including prioritization and reach of vaccination at home (neighborhood level) and at work.

Abstract Background The Improving Wisely intervention is a peer-to-peer audit and feedback intervention to reduce overuse of Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS). The objective of this study was to conduct a process evaluation to evaluate Mohs surgeons’ perceptions of the implementation quality and perceived impact of the Improving Wisely intervention. Methods Surgeons in the Improving Wisely intervention arm, comprised of members of the American College of Mohs Surgeons (ACMS) who co-led the intervention, were invited to complete surveys and key informant interviews. Participants described perceptions of implementation quality (evaluated via dose, quality of implementation, reach and participant responsiveness), perceived impact of the Improving Wisely intervention (evaluated on a 1–5 Likert and qualitatively), and barriers and facilitators to changing surgeons’ clinical practice patterns to reduce Mohs overuse. Results Seven hundred thirty-seven surgeons participated in the survey. 89% were supportive of the intervention. Participants agreed that the intervention would improve patient care and reduce the annual costs of Mohs surgery. Thirty surgeons participated in key informant interviews. 93% were interested in receiving additional data reports in the future. Participants recommended the reports be disseminated annually, that the reports be expanded to include appropriateness data, and that the intervention be extended to non ACMS members. Six themes identifying factors impacting potential MMS overuse were identified. Conclusions Participants were strongly supportive of the intervention. We present the template used to design and implement the Improving Wisely intervention and provide suggestions for specialty societies interested in leading similar quality improvement interventions among their members.

Abstract Background Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are increasingly used to guide treatment decisions for patients with cancer, though numerous barriers to optimal MCC decision-making quality have been identified. We aimed to improve the quality of MCC decision making through the use of an implementation bundle titled the KT-MCC Strategy. The Strategy included use of discussion tools (standard case intake tool and a synoptic discussion tool), workshops, MCC team and chair training, and audit and feedback. Implementation strategies were selected using a theoretically-rooted and integrated KT approach, meaning members of the target population (MCC participants) assisted with the design and implementation of the intervention and strategies. We evaluated implementation quality of the KT-MCC Strategy and initial signals of impact on decision making quality. Methods This was a before-and-after study design among 4 MCC teams. Baseline data (before-phase) were collected for a period of 2 months to assess the quality of MCC decision making. Study teams selected the intervention strategies they wished to engage with. Post-intervention data (after-phase) were collected for 4 months. Implementation quality outcomes included reach, adherence/fidelity and adaptation. We also evaluated feasibility of data management. Decision making quality was evaluated on a per-case and per-round level using the MTB-MODe and MDT-OARS tools, respectively. Results There were a total of 149 cases and 23 MCCs observed in the before phase and 260 cases and 35 MCCs observed in the after phase. Teams implemented 3/5 strategies; adherence to selected strategies varied by MCC team. The per-round quality of MCCs improved by 11% (41.0 to 47.3, p =

Abstract Background Across Ontario, since the year 2006 various knowledge translation (KT) interventions designed to improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery have been implemented by the provincial cancer agency or by individual researchers. Ontario is divided administratively into 14 health regions. We piloted a method to audit and score for each region of the province the KT interventions implemented to improve the quality of rectal cancer surgery. Methods We interviewed stakeholders to audit KT interventions used in respective regions over years 2006 to 2014. Results were summarized into narrative and visual forms. Using a modified Delphi approach, KT experts reviewed these data and then, for each region, scored implementation of KT interventions using a 20-item KT Signature Assessment Tool. Scores could range from 20 to 100 with higher scores commensurate with greater KT intervention implementation. Results There were thirty interviews. KT experts produced scores for each region that were bimodally distributed, with an average score for 2 regions of 78 (range 73–83) and for 12 regions of 30.5 (range 22–38). Conclusion Our methods efficiently identified two groups with similar KT Signature scores. Two regions had relatively high scores reflecting numerous KT interventions and the use of sustained iterative approaches in addition to those encouraged by the provincial cancer agency, while 12 regions had relatively low scores reflecting minimal activities outside of those encouraged by the provincial cancer agency. These groupings will be used for future comparative quantitative analyses to help determine if higher KT signature scores correlate with improved measures for quality of rectal cancer surgery.

Abstract Background Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences (MCCs) are prospective meetings involving cancer specialists to discuss treatment plans for patients with cancer. Despite reported gaps in MCC quality, there have been few efforts to improve its functioning. The purpose of this study was to use theoretically-rooted knowledge translation (KT) theories and frameworks to inform the development of a strategy to improve MCC decision-making quality. Methods A multi-phased approach was used to design an intervention titled the KT-MCC Strategy. First, key informant interviews framed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) were conducted with MCC participants to identify barriers and facilitators to optimal MCC decision-making. Second, identified TDF domains were mapped to corresponding strategies using the COM-B Behavior Change Wheel to develop the KT-MCC Strategy. Finally, focus groups with MCC participants were held to confirm acceptability of the proposed KT-MCC Strategy. Results Data saturation was reached at n = 21 interviews. Twenty-seven barrier themes and 13 facilitator themes were ascribed to 11 and 10 TDF domains, respectively. Differences in reported barriers by physician specialty were observed. The resulting KT-MCC Strategy included workshops, chair training, team training, standardized intake forms and a synoptic discussion checklist, and, audit and feedback. Focus groups (n = 3, participants 18) confirmed the acceptability of the identified interventions. Conclusion Myriad factors were found to influence MCC decision making. We present a novel application of the TDF and COM-B to the context of MCCs. We comprehensively describe the barriers and facilitators that impact MCC decision making and propose strategies that may positively impact the quality of MCC decision making.

BackgroundRetrospective data demonstrates that robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery provides many benefits, such as decreased postoperative pain, lower mortality, shorter length of stay, shorter chest tube duration, and reductions in the incidence of common postoperative pulmonary complications, when compared to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Despite the potential benefits of robotic surgery, there are two major barriers against its widespread adoption in thoracic surgery: lack of high-quality prospective data, and the perceived higher cost of it. Therefore, in the face of these barriers, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing robotic- to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is needed. The RAVAL trial is a two-phase, international, multi-centered, blinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial that is comparing robotic- to video-assisted lobectomy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer that has been enrolling patients since 2016.MethodsThe RAVAL trial will be conducted in two phases: Phase A will enroll 186 early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients who are candidates for minimally invasive pulmonary lobectomy; while Phase B will continue to recruit until 592 patients are enrolled. After consent, participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either robotic- or video-assisted lobectomy, and blinded to the type of surgery they are allocated to. Health-related quality of life questionnaires will be administered at baseline, postoperative day 1, weeks 3, 7, 12, months 6, 12, 18, 24, and years 3, 4, 5. The primary objective of the RAVAL trial is to determine the difference in patient-reported health-related quality of life outcomes between the robotic- and video-assisted lobectomy groups at 12 weeks. Secondary objectives include determining the differences in cost-effectiveness, and in the 5-year survival data between the two arms. The results of the primary objective will be reported once Phase A has completed accrual and the 12-month follow-ups are completed. The results of the secondary objectives will be reported once Phase B has completed accrual and the 5-year follow-ups are completed.DiscussionIf successfully completed, the RAVAL Trial will have studied patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and survival of robotic- versus video-assisted lobectomy in a prospective, randomized, blinded fashion in an international setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617186. Registered 22-September-2015. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02617186.

Governments can use social media platforms such as Twitter to disseminate health information to the public, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic [Pershad (2018)]. The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of Canadian government and public health officials' use of Twitter as a dissemination platform during the pandemic and to explore the public's engagement with and sentiment towards these messages. We examined the account data of 93 Canadian public health and government officials during the first wave of the pandemic in Canada (December 31, 2019 August 31, 2020). Our objectives were to: 1) determine the engagement rates of the public with Canadian federal and provincial/territorial governments and public health officials' Twitter posts; 2) conduct a hashtag trend analysis to explore the Canadian public's discourse related to the pandemic during this period; 3) provide insights on the public's reaction to Canadian authorities' tweets through sentiment analysis. To address these objectives, we extracted Twitter posts, replies, and associated metadata available during the study period in both English and French. Our results show that the public demonstrated increased engagement with federal officials' Twitter accounts as compared to provincial/territorial accounts. For the hashtag trends analysis of the public discourse during the first wave of the pandemic, we observed a topic shift in the Canadian public discourse over time between the period prior to the first wave and the first wave of the pandemic. Additionally, we identified 11 sentiments expressed by the public when reacting to Canadian authorities' tweets. This study illustrates the potential to leverage social media to understand public discourse during a pandemic. We suggest that routine analyses of such data by governments can provide governments and public health officials with real-time data on public sentiments during a public health emergency. These data can be used to better disseminate key messages to the public.

Background: In November 2011, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care released guidelines for screening women at average breast cancer risk. Weak recommendations (framed using GRADE methodology) were made for screening women aged 50 to 74 years every two to three years, and for not screening women aged 40 to 49 years. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis using administrative data to examine bilateral mammography use before and after a national guideline dissemination strategy targeting primary care physicians. Women aged 40 to 74 years living in Ontario or Alberta from 30 th November 2008 to 30 th November 2014 were included. Strata included age, region of residence, neighbourhood income quintile, immigration status, and education level. Results: In both provinces, mammography use rates were lower in the post-intervention period (527 vs. 556 and 428 vs. 465/1000 participant-months - the monthly screening rate/1000 - in Ontario and Alberta, respectively). In Ontario, mammography trends decreased following guideline release to align with recommendations for women aged 40 to 74 (decrease of 2.21/1000 women, SE 0.26/1000, p Conclusions: The guideline dissemination strategy appeared to increase uptake of guideline-concordant screening practice in women aged 40 to 49 years in Ontario and Alberta and for women aged 50 to 74 years in Ontario. Further work is required to understand these findings and whether shared decision making about mammography between women and providers increased among women considering mammography.

Abstract Background The Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis (VTE-PRO) randomized trial is a pilot study evaluating the impact of extended-duration prophylaxis on venous thromboembolic events in patients undergoing lung cancer resection. Enrolled VTE-PRO participants self-inject either low-molecular weight heparin or a saline placebo for 30 days postoperatively. Study outcomes include feasibility, incidence of venous thromboembolism, and venous thromboembolism-related morbidity and mortality. Initial analyses demonstrated low rates of accrual and retention for the VTE-PRO pilot. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to develop a knowledge translation intervention to improve VTE-PRO pilot trial accrual and retention. Methods Eligible participants were surveyed to identify the barriers to VTE-PRO participation. The Theoretical Domains Framework was used to categorize these barriers. Barriers were mapped to the capabilities, opportunities, and behavior (COM-B) behavioral change wheel to identify potential interventions to support trial accrual and retention. The resulting knowledge translation intervention was titled Inform, Remind, Involve and Support to improve Accrual and Retention (IRIS-AR). Key informant interviews with patients were held to refine and confirm the validity of identified barriers and perceived acceptability of the proposed IRIS-AR intervention. Institutional Review Board approval was granted for this study. Results The resulting intervention included: information booklets and counseling sessions to identify unique participant challenges to trial participation (Inform); daily reminders to administer injections (Remind); involvement of family/caregivers in study processes (Involve); and leverage of an existing home-care nursing program to provide injection support when needed (Support). Twenty-six key informant participants were interviewed. The most common barriers to trial participation included lack of social support and fear of needle injection. Participants generally supported use of information booklets, involvement of family/caregivers, and support by a home-care nursing program; however, not all supported the use of daily reminders. Conclusion Developed using theory and integrated knowledge translation, the IRIS-AR presents a patient-centered intervention that leverages existing programs to promote trial engagement. The proposed strategy can likely be adapted to improve compliance with other patient-directed interventions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02334007. Registered on 8 January 2015.