Browsing by Author "Fairie, Paul"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemOpen AccessGod only knows: the Canadian Catholic voter in a comparative context(2007) Fairie, Paul; Young, Lisa
- ItemOpen AccessPatient-identified priorities for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research(2022-09-07) Santana, Maria J.; Duquette, D’Arcy; Fairie, Paul; Nielssen, Ingrid; Bele, Sumedh; Ahmed, Sadia; Barbosa, Tiffany; Zelinsky, SandraAbstract Albertans4HealthResearch, supported by the Alberta Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Patient Engagement Team, hosted a virtual round table discussion to develop a list of considerations for successful partnerships in patient-oriented research. The group, which consists of active patient partners across the Canadian province of Alberta and some research staff engaged in patient-oriented research, considered advice for academic researchers on how to best partner with patients and community members on health research projects. The group identified four main themes, aligned with the national strategy for patient-oriented research (SPOR) patient engagement framework, highlighting important considerations for researchers from the patient perspective, providing practical ways to implement SPOR’s key principles: inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. This commentary considers the process behind this engagement exercise and offers advice directly from active patient research partners on how to fulfill the operational patient engagement mandate. Academic research teams can use this guidance when considering how to work together with patient partners and community members.
- ItemOpen AccessPatient-reported experiences and outcomes of virtual care during COVID-19: a systematic review(2023-12-01) Bajgain, Bishnu; Rabi, Sarah; Ahmed, Sadia; Kiryanova, Veronika; Fairie, Paul; Santana, Maria J.Abstract Introduction The onset of COVID-19 has caused an international upheaval of traditional in-person approaches to care delivery. Rapid system-level transitions to virtual care provision restrict the ability of healthcare professionals to evaluate care quality from the patient's perspective. This poses challenges to ensuring that patient-centered care is upheld within virtual environments. To address this, the study’s objective was to review how virtual care has impacted patient experiences and outcomes during COVID-19, through the use of patient-reported experience and outcome measures (PREMs and PROMs), respectively. Methods A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to evaluate patient responsiveness to virtual care during COVID-19. Using an exhaustive search strategy, relevant peer-reviewed articles published between January 2020 and 2022 were pulled from MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsychInfo databases. Study quality was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A patient partner was consulted throughout the study to provide feedback and co-conduct the review. Results After removing duplicates, 6048 articles underwent title and abstract review, from which 644 studies were included in the full-text review stage. Following this, 102 articles were included in the study. Studies were published in 20 different countries, were predominantly cross-sectional, and reported on the delivery of virtual care in specialized adult outpatient settings. This review identified 29 validated PREMs and 43 PROMs. Several advantages to virtual care were identified, with patients citing greater convenience, (such as saving travel time and cost, less waiting experienced to see care providers) and increased protection from viral spread. Some studies also reported challenges patients and caregivers faced with virtual care, including feeling rushed during the virtual care appointment, lack of physical contact or examination presenting barriers, difficulty with communicating symptoms, and technology issues. Conclusion This review provides supportive evidence of virtual care experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic from patient and caregiver perspectives. This research provides a comprehensive overview of what patient-reported measures can be used to record virtual care quality amid and following the pandemic. Further research into healthcare professionals’ perspectives would offer a supportive lens toward a strong person-centered healthcare system.
- ItemOpen AccessStudy protocol for Attachment & Child Health (ATTACHTM) program: promoting vulnerable Children’s health at scale(2022-08-19) Anis, Lubna; Letourneau, Nicole; Ross, Kharah M.; Hart, Martha; Graham, Ian; Lalonde, Simone; Varro, Suzanna; Baldwin, Alanna; Soulsby, Angela; Majnemer, Annette; Donnelly, Carlene; Piotrowski, Caroline; Collier, Carrie; Lindeman, Cliff; Goldowitz, Dan; Isaac, Dawn; Thomson, Denise; Serré, Diane; Citro, Elisabeth; Zimmermann, Gabrielle; Pliszka, Harold; Mann, Jackie; Baumann, Janine; Piekarski, Joanna; Dalton, Jo-Anne; Johnson-Green, Joy; Wood, Karen; Bruce, Marcia; Santana, Maria; Mayer, Matt; Gould, Meghan; Kobor, Michael; Flowers, Michelle; Haywood, Michelle; Koerner, Michelle; Parker, Nancy; Muhajarine, Nazeem; Fairie, Paul; Chrishti, Rabea; Perry, Robert; Merrill, Sarah; Pociuk, Shellie; StephanieTaylor; Cole, Steve; Murphy, Tim; Marchment, Tmira; Xavier, Virginia; Shajani, Zahra; West, ZoeAbstract Background Children’s exposure to toxic stress (e.g., parental depression, violence, poverty) predicts developmental and physical health problems resulting in health care system burden. Supporting parents to develop parenting skills can buffer the effects of toxic stress, leading to healthier outcomes for those children. Parenting interventions that focus on promoting parental reflective function (RF), i.e., parents’ capacity for insight into their child’s and their own thoughts, feelings, and mental states, may understand help reduce societal health inequities stemming from childhood stress exposures. The Attachment and Child Health (ATTACHTM) program has been implemented and tested in seven rapid-cycling pilot studies (n = 64) and found to significantly improve parents’ RF in the domains of attachment, parenting quality, immune function, and children’s cognitive and motor development. The purpose of the study is to conduct an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (EIH) Type II study of ATTACHTM to assess its impacts in naturalistic, real-world settings delivered by community agencies rather than researchers under more controlled conditions. Methods The study is comprised of a quantitative pre/post-test quasi-experimental evaluation of the ATTACHTM program, and a qualitative examination of implementation feasibility using thematic analysis via Normalization Process Theory (NPT). We will work with 100 families and their children (birth to 36-months-old). Study outcomes include: the Parent Child Interaction Teaching Scale to assess parent-child interaction; the Parental Reflective Function and Reflective Function Questionnaires to assess RF; and the Ages and Stages Questionnaire – 3rd edition to examine child development, all administered pre-, post-, and 3-month-delayed post-assessment. Blood samples will be collected pre- and post- assessment to assess immune biomarkers. Further, we will conduct one-on-one interviews with study participants, health and social service providers, and administrators (total n = 60) from each collaborating agency, using NPT to explore perceptions and experiences of intervention uptake, the fidelity assessment tool and e-learning training as well as the benefits, barriers, and challenges to ATTACHTM implementation. Discussion The proposed study will assess effectiveness and implementation to help understand the delivery of ATTACHTM in community agencies. Trial registration Name of registry: https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Registration number: NCT04853888 . Date of registration: April 22, 2021.
- ItemOpen AccessVariation in parental experiences with their child’s hospitalization over the COVID-19 pandemic(2023-11-10) Kemp, Kyle A.; Fairie, Paul; Steele, Brian; Santana, Maria J.Abstract Background Hospitals and healthcare workers have been greatly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The potential impacts upon the patient experience have been less documented, particularly in the pediatric setting. Our aim was to examine how parental experiences with their child’s hospitalization varied during the COVID-19 pandemic at two children’s hospitals in Alberta, Canada. Methods A random sample of parents were surveyed within six weeks of their child’s discharge from Alberta’s two children’s hospitals. Surveys were administered using the Alberta Pediatric Inpatient Experiences Survey (APIES) - a validated instrument used to assess parental experiences during their child’s hospitalization. Surveys were linked with administrative inpatient records. Three cohorts were created based on hospital discharge date: Pre-COVID (Pre: April 2019 to March 2020), COVID year one (C1: April 2020 to March 2021), and COVID year two (C2: April 2021 to March 2022). We examined 48 survey questions, including four overall rating scales. Survey responses were Likert scales. These were transformed to normalized scores from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Differences between cohorts were assessed using ANOVA and the post-hoc Tukey test. Results A total of 3,611 surveys (1,314 Pre; 997 C1; 1,300 C2) were completed over the three-year period. Five questions showed differences between the Pre and C1 periods, six showed differences between Pre and C2, and 13 showed differences between C1 and C2. Among these questions, scores pre-COVID were lower than COVID year one, while results in COVID year two were lower than pre-COVID and COVID year one. Thirty-one survey questions showed no statistical differences between the three time periods. For the overall ratings, only hospital rating showed a difference in any of the periods (91.4 C1 vs. 90.2 C2). Overall ratings of doctors, nurses, and recommendation of the hospital to others showed no differences. Conclusion This study showed that the experiences of parents during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were mildly better or comparable to historical results. This changed over the following year, where lower scores were reported on 13 questions.