Search

Objective The objectives were to (1) compare satisfaction with social roles and activities in a large multinational systemic sclerosis (SSc) cohort to general population normative data and (2) identify sociodemographic, lifestyle and SSc disease factors associated with satisfaction with social roles and activities.Methods Participants in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Information System Version 2 satisfaction with social roles and activities domain questionnaire. Multivariable regression was used to assess associations with sociodemographic, lifestyle and disease factors.Results Among 2385 participants, mean satisfaction with social roles and activities T-score (48.1, SD=9.9) was slightly lower than the US general population (mean=50, SD=10). Factors independently associated with satisfaction were years of education (0.54 per SD, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.93); non-White race or ethnicity (−1.13, 95% CI −2.18 to –0.08); living in Canada (−1.33, 95% CI −2.40 to –0.26 (reference USA)) or the UK (−2.49, 95% CI −3.92 to –1.06); body mass index (−1.08 per SD, 95% CI −1.47 to –0.69); gastrointestinal involvement (−3.16, 95% CI −4.27 to –2.05); digital ulcers (−1.90, 95% CI −3.05 to –0.76); moderate (−1.62, 95% CI −2.78 to –0.45) or severe (−2.26, 95% CI −3.99 to –0.52) small joint contractures; interstitial lung disease (−1.11, 95% CI −1.97 to –0.25); pulmonary arterial hypertension (−2.69, 95% CI −4.08 to –1.30); rheumatoid arthritis (−2.51, 95% CI −4.28 to –0.73); and Sjogren’s syndrome (−2.42, 95% CI −3.96 to –0.88).Conclusion Mean satisfaction with social roles and activities is slightly lower in SSc than the general population and associated with multiple sociodemographic and disease factors.

ABSTRACTBackground Chronic pain affects approximately one in every five Canadians and has a substantial impact on psychological well-being, relationships, ability to attend work or school, and overall functioning.The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic introduced orientation sessions, with the aim of providing new patients with pain education to help prepare patients for engagement with multimodal pain management strategies. This report summarizes the results of a formative evaluation of the orientation session at The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic to determine whether patients perceived the orientation session as beneficial.Methods Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and then thematically analyzed to understand patients’ perspectives on the orientation session. Coding was done by two team members using the constant comparison analyses method with key ideas, concepts, and patterns identified and compared to identify similarities.Results Between September 6 and October 18, 2019, 18 patients attended an orientation session and 12 consented to participation and completed telephone interviews. The six themes identified included (1) feeling of community, (2) participants feeling heard by providers, (3) appreciation of the holistic approach, (4) availability of community resources, (5) barriers to access, and (6) discordant feelings of preparedness for the physician appointment.Conclusion Results from this evaluation indicate that the orientation session offered at The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic improves chronic pain literacy, reduces feeling of isolation, and instills hope. As such, it appears to be a valuable component of pain clinic programs.

RationaleMethamphetamine use and related harms have risen at alarming rates. While several psychosocial and pharmacologic interventions have been described in the literature, there is uncertainty regarding the best approach for the management of methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) and problematic methamphetamine use (PMU). We conducted a scoping review of recent systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), and primary controlled studies of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments for MUD/PMU.MethodsGuided by an a priori protocol, electronic database search updates (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase) were performed in February 2022. Screening was performed following a two-stage process, leveraging artificial intelligence to increase efficiency of title and abstract screening. Studies involving individuals who use methamphetamine, including key subgroups (e.g. those with mental health comorbidities; adolescents/youths; gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men) were sought. We examined evidence related to methamphetamine use, relapse, use of other substances, risk behaviors, mental health, harms, and retention. Figures, tables and descriptive synthesis were used to present findings from the identified literature.ResultsWe identified 2 SRs, one CPG, and 54 primary studies reported in 69 publications that met our eligibility criteria. Amongst SRs, one concluded that psychostimulants had no effect on methamphetamine abstinence or treatment retention while the other reported no effect of topiramate on cravings. The CPG strongly recommended psychosocial interventions as well as self-help and family support groups for post-acute management of methamphetamine-related disorders. Amongst primary studies, many interventions were assessed by only single studies; contingency management was the therapy most commonly associated with evidence of potential effectiveness, while bupropion and modafinil were analogously the most common pharmacologic interventions. Nearly all interventions showed signs of potential benefit on at least one methamphetamine-related outcome measure.DiscussionThis scoping review provides an overview of available interventions for the treatment of MUD/PMU. As most interventions were reported by a single study, the effectiveness of available interventions remains uncertain. Primary studies with longer durations of treatment and follow-up, larger sample sizes, and of special populations are required for conclusive recommendations of best approaches for the treatment of MUD/PMU.

BackgroundCannabis legalization has enabled increased consumption in older adults. Age-related mental, physical, and physiological changes may lead to differences in effects of cannabis in older adults compared to younger individuals.ObjectiveTo perform a scoping review to map the evidence regarding the health effects of cannabis use for medical and non-medical purposes in older adults.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library) were searched for systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized/observational studies (NRSs) assessing the health effects and associations of cannabis use (medical or non-medical) in adults ≥ 50 years of age. Included studies met age-related inclusion criteria or involved a priori identified health conditions common among older adults. Records were screened using a liberal accelerated approach and data charting was performed independently by two reviewers. Descriptive summaries, structured tables, effect direction plots and bubble plots were used to synthesize study findings.FindingsFrom 31,393 citations, 133 publications describing 134 unique studies (26 SRs, 36 RCTs, 72 NRSs) were included. Medical cannabis had inconsistent therapeutic effects in specific patient conditions (e.g., end-stage cancer, dementia), with a number of studies suggesting possible benefits while others found no benefit. For medical cannabis, harmful associations outnumbered beneficial, and RCTs reported more negative effects than NRSs. Cannabis use was associated with greater frequencies of depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, substance use and problematic substance use, accidents/injuries, and acute healthcare use. Studies often were small, did not consistently assess harms, and did not adjust for confounding.DiscussionThe effects of medical cannabis are inconsistent within specific patient conditions. For older adults, generally, the available evidence suggests cannabis use may be associated with greater frequencies of mental health issues, substance use, and acute healthcare use, and the benefit-to-risk ratio is unclear. Studies with a balanced assessment of benefits and harms may guide appropriate public health messaging to balance the marketing pressures of cannabis to older adults.

Abstract Background Given the complex nature of opioid addiction treatment and the rising number of available opioid substitution and antagonist therapies (OSAT), there is no ‘gold standard’ measure of treatment effectiveness, and each successive trial measures a different set of outcomes which reflect success in arbitrary or opportune terms. We sought to describe the variation in current outcomes employed across clinical trials for opioid addiction, as well as determine whether a discrepancy exists between the treatment targets that patients consider important and how treatment effectiveness is measured in the literature. Methods We searched nine commonly used databases (e.g., EMBASE, MEDLINE) from inception to August 1, 2015. Outcomes used across trials were extracted and categorized according to previously established domains. To evaluate patient-reported goals of treatment, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults undergoing methadone treatment. Results We identified 60 trials eligible for inclusion. Once outcomes were categorized into eight broad domains (e.g., abstinence/substance abuse), we identified 21 specific outcomes with furthermore 53 subdomains and 118 measurements. Continued opioid use and treatment retention were the most commonly reported measures (46%, n = 28). The majority of patients agreed that abstinence from opioids was a primary goal in their treatment, although they also stressed goals under-reported in clinical trials. Conclusions There is inconsistency in the measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of OSATs. Individual and population level decision making is being guided by a standard of effect considered useful to researchers yet in direct conflict with what patients deem important. Trial registration PROSPERO, CRD42013006507.

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary pain assessment program on pain and health‐related quality of life among individuals with chronic pain who frequently visit the emergency department (ED). Methods Individuals with chronic pain who frequented the ED (ie, ≥8 visits within the previous 12 months) were randomly assigned to a collaborative chronic pain management program or treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were change in physical function and visits to the ED from baseline to 12 months using validated measures. Secondary measures included physical and emotional functioning, insomnia, health‐related quality of life, risk of aberrant opioid use, and health care use. Mixed model analyses of variances were used to evaluate intervention effectiveness among the whole sample (ie, using intention to treat principles) and individuals who completed more than 50% of follow‐up assessments. Results One hundred participants were assessed for eligibility and 46 patients were enrolled with 24 being randomized to intervention and 22 to treatment as usual (TAU). Eleven of the 24 patients randomized to the intervention were lost to follow‐up and 3 withdrew participation. Two of the 22 patients randomized to TAU were lost to follow‐up, and 7 withdrew. Although patients assigned to the intervention improved more rapidly on measures of pain and health related quality of life, both groups had similar improvements overall between baseline to 12 months. Average pain intensity reduction (numeric rating scale [SE]) was 4.63 (0.40) in the intervention and 4.82 (0.53) in the treatment as usual at the 12‐month follow‐up. A significant group × time interaction was present for risk of aberrant opioid use, with individuals in the intervention group reporting greater improvement in risk of aberrant opioid use by 12‐month follow‐up. Conclusion Participation in an interdisciplinary program may accelerate improvements in pain‐ and health‐related quality of life and reduce risk of aberrant opioid use to manage pain and related distress. Further research is needed to better understand and address barriers to engagement in chronic pain care.

Background Canadians make approximately 16 million visits to the emergency department (ED) each year. ED visits for non-urgent reasons contribute to suboptimal patient care and ineffective resource use. Aims To estimate the proportion of ED visits related to chronic pain at our institution. Methods. We conducted a retrospective review of 1000 randomly selected ED visits at TOH during the 2012–2013 fiscal year (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013). Visits for chronic pain were identified using pre-defined criteria. Demographic and medical data were extracted from medical charts. Results 104 visits during this time period were related to chronic pain (10.4%; 95% CI: 8.2–12.6). All visits were from unique patients (i.e., no patients contributed more than 1 visit). Patients were predominantly women (71%), with a mean age of 45.9 years. Seventy-eight percent of patients had a primary care provider. The most common location of pain included the abdomen (24%), the head or face (21%), and the low back (21%). Only 5% of patients had consultation with a pain medicine specialist while 78% were awaiting a consultation. More than 2/3 of patients (71%) reported using opioids for their pain. Conclusion Presenting to the ED for chronic pain was found to occur among a sample of ED visits reviewed. This can result in ineffective care for patients with chronic pain. Cost-effective solutions to improve clinical outcomes and reduce ED use for chronic pain may yield significant improvements in health outcomes of patients and benefits for the health care system.

IntroductionOne of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents.MethodsWe conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer.ResultsA total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory.ConclusionMany healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.

IntroductionWith its legalisation and regulation in Canada in 2018, the proportion of Canadians reporting cannabis use in 2019 increased substantially over the previous year, with half of new users being aged 45+ years. While use in older adults has been low historically, as those born in the 1950s and 1960s continue to age, this demographic will progressively have more liberal attitudes, prior cannabis exposure and higher use rates. However, older adults experience slower metabolism, increased likelihood of polypharmacy, cognitive decline and chronic physical/mental health problems. There is a need to enhance knowledge of the effects of cannabis use in older adults. The following question will be addressed using a scoping review approach: what evidence exists regarding beneficial and harmful effects of medical and non-medical cannabis use in adults >50 years of age? Given that beneficial and harmful effects of cannabis may be mediated by patient-level (eg, age, sex and race) and cannabis-related factors (eg, natural vs synthetic, consumption method), subgroup effects related to these and additional factors will be explored.Methods and analysisMethods for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey & O’Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be used. A librarian designed a systematic search of the literature from database inception to June 2019. Using the OVID platform, Ovid MEDLINE will be searched, including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, and PsycINFO for reviews, randomised trials, non-randomised trials and observational studies of cannabis use. The Cochrane Library on Wiley will also be searched. Eligibility criteria will be older adult participants, currently using cannabis (medical or non-medical), with studies required to report a cannabis-related health outcome to be eligible. Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts, with support from artificial intelligence. Two reviewers will chart data. Tables/graphics will be used to map evidence and identify evidence gaps.Ethics and disseminationThis research will enhance awareness of existing evidence addressing the health effects of medical and non-medical cannabis use in older adults. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting.Trial registration numberDOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/5JTAQ.

OBJECTIVE:A current assessment of case reports of possible drug-induced pancreatitis is needed. We systematically reviewed the case report literature to identify drugs with potential associations with acute pancreatitis and the burden of evidence supporting these associations. METHODS:A protocol was developed a priori (PROSPERO CRD42017060473). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and additional sources to identify cases of drug-induced pancreatitis that met accepted diagnostic criteria of acute pancreatitis. Cases caused by multiple drugs or combination therapy were excluded. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction. A classification system for associated drugs was developed a priori based upon the number of cases, re-challenge, exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis, and consistency of latency. RESULTS:Seven-hundred and thirteen cases of potential drug-induced pancreatitis were identified, implicating 213 unique drugs. The evidence base was poor: exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis was incomplete or poorly reported in all cases, 47% had at least one underlying condition predisposing to acute pancreatitis, and causality assessment was not conducted in 81%. Forty-five drugs (21%) were classified as having the highest level of evidence regarding their association with acute pancreatitis; causality was deemed to be probable or definite for 19 of these drugs (42%). Fifty-seven drugs (27%) had the lowest level of evidence regarding an association with acute pancreatitis, being implicated in single case reports, without exclusion of other causes of acute pancreatitis. DISCUSSION:Much of the case report evidence upon which drug-induced pancreatitis associations are based is tenuous. A greater emphasis on exclusion of all non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis and on quality reporting would improve the evidence base. It should be recognized that reviews of case reports, are valuable scoping tools but have limited strength to establish drug-induced pancreatitis associations. REGISTRATION:CRD42017060473.

BackgroundGuidelines recommend that individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological and psychosocial interventions; however, the most appropriate psychosocial intervention is not known. In collaboration with people with lived experience, clinicians, and policy makers, we sought to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy (OAT) among persons with OUD.MethodsA review protocol was registered a priori (CRD42018090761), and a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted from database inception to June 2020 in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Established methods for study selection and data extraction were used. Primary outcomes were treatment retention and opioid use (measured by urinalysis for opioid use and opioid abstinence outcomes). Odds ratios were estimated using network meta-analyses (NMA) as appropriate based on available evidence, and in remaining cases alternative approaches to synthesis were used.ResultsSeventy-two RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias evaluations commonly identified study limitations and poor reporting with regard to methods used for allocation concealment and selective outcome reporting. Due to inconsistency in reporting of outcome measures, only 48 RCTs (20 unique interventions, 5,404 participants) were included for NMA of treatment retention, where statistically significant differences were found when psychosocial interventions were used as an adjunct to OAT as compared to OAT-only. The addition of rewards-based interventions such as contingency management (alone or with community reinforcement approach) to OAT was superior to OAT-only. Few statistically significant differences between psychosocial interventions were identified among any other pairwise comparisons. Heterogeneity in reporting formats precluded an NMA for opioid use. A structured synthesis was undertaken for the remaining outcomes which included opioid use (n = 18 studies) and opioid abstinence (n = 35 studies), where the majority of studies found no significant difference between OAT plus psychosocial interventions as compared to OAT-only.ConclusionsThis systematic review offers a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence and the limitations of current trials of psychosocial interventions applied as an adjunct to OAT for OUD. Clinicians and health services may wish to consider integrating contingency management in addition to OAT for OUD in their settings to improve treatment retention. Aside from treatment retention, few differences were consistently found between psychosocial interventions adjunctive to OAT and OAT-only. There is a need for high-quality RCTs to establish more definitive conclusions.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42018090761.

Poststroke depression has been shown to affect rehabilitation progress. This study evaluated patients after stroke who actively participated in a home-based rehabilitation program to determine variables that correlated with depressive symptoms in this population. A retrospective review of patients who were provided rehabilitation by Community Stroke Rehabilitation Team clinicians between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2015, was completed. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine which demographic and outcome variables (Functional Independence Measure [FIM™] and Reintegration to Normal Living Index [RNLI]) were independently associated with depressive symptoms, as defined by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores. 889 patients (53.2% male, mean age = 69.8 years) were included. Based on PHQ-9 scores, 89.7% of patients presented with no or mild depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 < 10) and 10.3% were considered to have moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). The regression demonstrated that referral from outpatient, community care access centre, or community settings (OR = 1.89, p=0.04), low RNLI scores (OR = 0.92; p=0.001), and younger age (OR = 0.96; p