Browsing by Author "Leigh, Jeanna P."

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Co-development of a transitions in care bundle for patient transitions from the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods analysis of a stakeholder consensus meeting
    (2022-01-02) Rosgen, Brianna K.; Plotnikoff, Kara M.; Krewulak, Karla D.; Shahid, Anmol; Hernandez, Laura; Sept, Bonnie G.; Morrissey, Jeanna; Robertson, Kristin; Fraser, Nancy; Niven, Daniel J.; Straus, Sharon E.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing transitions in care are at increased risk of adverse events and gaps in medical care. We evaluated existing patient- and family-centered transitions in care tools and identified facilitators, barriers, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle in critically ill adults (i.e., a collection of evidence-based patient- and family-centred tools to improve outcomes during and after transitions from the intensive care unit [ICU] to hospital ward or community). Methods We conducted a concurrent mixed methods (quan + QUAL) study, including stakeholders with experience in ICU transitions in care (i.e., patient/family partners, researchers, decision-makers, providers, and other knowledge-users). First, participants scored existing transitions in care tools using the modified Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) framework. Transitions in care tools were discussed by stakeholders and either accepted, accepted with modifications, or rejected if consensus was achieved (≥70% agreement). We summarized quantitative results using frequencies and medians. Second, we conducted a qualitative analysis of participant discussions using grounded theory principles to elicit factors influencing AGREE-II scores, and to identify barriers, facilitators, and implementation considerations for the application of a transitions in care bundle. Results Twenty-nine stakeholders attended. Of 18 transitions in care tools evaluated, seven (39%) tools were accepted with modifications, one (6%) tool was rejected, and consensus was not reached for ten (55%) tools. Qualitative analysis found that participants’ AGREE-II rankings were influenced by: 1) language (e.g., inclusive, balance of jargon and lay language); 2) if the tool was comprehensive (i.e., could stand alone); 3) if the tool could be individualized for each patient; 4) impact to clinical workflow; and 5) how the tool was presented (e.g., brochure, video). Participants discussed implementation considerations for a patient- and family-centered transitions in care bundle: 1) delivery (e.g., tool format and timing); 2) continuity (e.g., follow-up after ICU discharge); and 3) continuous evaluation and improvement (e.g., frequency of tool use). Participants discussed existing facilitators (e.g., collaboration and co-design) and barriers (e.g., health system capacity) that would impact application of a transitions in care bundle. Conclusions Findings will inform future research to develop a transitions in care bundle for transitions from the ICU, co-designed with patients, families, providers, researchers, decision-makers, and knowledge-users.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care: a multi-method study
    (2022-04-06) Leigh, Jeanna P.; Sypes, Emma E.; Straus, Sharon E.; Demiantschuk, Danielle; Ma, Henry; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; de Grood, Chloe; FitzGerald, Emily A.; Mizen, Sara; Stelfox, Henry T.; Niven, Daniel J.
    Abstract Background There is an urgent need to understand the determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of de-implementation. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive list of determinants of the de-implementation of low-value care from the published literature and to compare this list to determinants identified by a group of stakeholders with lived experience with de-implementation. Methods This was a two-phase multi-method study. First, a systematic review examined published barriers and facilitators to de-implementation. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, reference lists and the grey literature. Citations were screened independently and in duplicate and included if they were: 1) written in English; and 2) described a barrier or facilitator to de-implementation of any clinical practice in adults (age ≥ 18 years). ‘Raw text’ determinants cited within included articles were extracted and synthesized into a list of representative determinants using conventional content analysis. Second, semi-structured interviews were conducted with decision-makers (unit managers and medical directors) and healthcare professionals working in adult critical care medicine to explore the overlap between the determinants found in the systematic review to those experienced in critical care medicine. Thematic content analysis was used to identify key themes emerging from the interviews. Results In the systematic review, reviewers included 172 articles from 35,368 unique citations. From 437 raw text barriers and 280 raw text facilitators, content analysis produced 29 distinct barriers and 24 distinct facilitators to de-implementation. Distinct barriers commonly cited within raw text included ‘lack of credible evidence to support de-implementation’ (n = 90, 21%), ‘entrenched norms and clinicians’ resistance to change (n = 43, 21%), and ‘patient demands and preferences’ (n = 28, 6%). Distinct facilitators commonly cited within raw text included ‘stakeholder collaboration and communication’ (n = 43, 15%), and ‘availability of credible evidence’ (n = 33, 12%). From stakeholder interviews, 23 of 29 distinct barriers and 20 of 24 distinct facilitators from the systematic review were cited as key themes relevant to de-implementation in critical care. Conclusions The availability and quality of evidence that identifies a clinical practice as low-value, as well as healthcare professional willingness to change, and stakeholder collaboration are common and important determinants of de-implementation and may serve as targets for future de-implementation initiatives. Trial registration The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO CRD42016050234 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Impact of restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic on critically ill patients, families, and critical care clinicians: a qualitative systematic review
    (2024-08-15) Krewulak, Karla D.; Jaworska, Natalia; Lee, Laurie; Louis, Julia S.; Dmitrieva, Olesya; Leia, Madison P.; Doig, Christopher; Niven, Daniel J.; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Rochwerg, Bram; West, Andrew; Stelfox, Henry T.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background We aimed to synthesize the qualitative evidence on the impacts of COVID-19-related restricted family presence policies from the perspective of patients, families, and healthcare professionals from neonatal (NICU), pediatric (PICU), or adult ICUs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases of Reviews and Clinical Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two researchers independently reviewed titles/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Thematic analysis was completed following appraising article quality and assessing confidence in the individual review findings using standardized tools. Results We synthesized 54 findings from 184 studies, revealing the impacts of these policies in children and adults on: (1) Family integrated care and patient and family-centered care (e.g., disruption to breastfeeding/kangaroo care, dehumanizing of patients); (2) Patients, families, and healthcare professionals (e.g., negative mental health consequences, moral distress); (3) Support systems (e.g., loss of support from friends/families); and (4) Relationships (e.g., loss of essential bonding with infant, struggle to develop trust). Strategies to mitigate these impacts are reported. Conclusion This review highlights the multifaceted impacts of restricted visitation policies across distinct care settings and strategies to mitigate the harmful effects of these policies and guide the creation of compassionate family presence policies in future health crises. Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=290263 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Incorporating and evaluating citizen engagement in health research: a scoping review protocol
    (2021-09-28) Shahid, Anmol; Rosgen, Brianna K.; Krewulak, Karla D.; Lorenzetti, Diane L.; Foster, Nadine; Sept, Bonnie G.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript. Methods The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O’ Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and gray literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) from inception onwards and search relevant organizations’ websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., barriers, facilitators). Discussion This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework  https://osf.io/hzcbr .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Interventions on gender equity in the workplace: a scoping review
    (2024-04-05) Tricco, Andrea C.; Parker, Amanda; Khan, Paul A.; Nincic, Vera; Robson, Reid; MacDonald, Heather; Warren, Rachel; Cleary, Olga; Zibrowski, Elaine; Baxter, Nancy; Burns, Karen E. A.; Coyle, Doug; Ndjaboue, Ruth; Clark, Jocalyn P.; Langlois, Etienne V.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Witteman, Holly O.; Graham, Ian D.; El-Adhami, Wafa; Skidmore, Becky; Légaré, France; Curran, Janet; Hawker, Gillian; Watt, Jennifer; Bourgeault, Ivy L.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Lawford, Karen; Aiken, Alice; McCabe, Christopher; Shepperd, Sasha; Pattani, Reena; Leon, Natalie; Lundine, Jamie; Adisso, Évèhouénou L.; Ono, Santa; Rabeneck, Linda; Straus, Sharon E.
    Abstract Background Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). Methods Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. Results We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. Conclusions There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Public perceptions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: a demographic analysis of self-reported beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition
    (2022-04-09) Leigh, Jeanna P.; Brundin-Mather, Rebecca; Soo, Andrea; FitzGerald, Emily; Mizen, Sara; Dodds, Alexandra; Ahmed, Sofia; Burns, Karen E. A.; Plotnikoff, Kara M.; Rochwerg, Bram; Perry, Jeffrey J.; Benham, Jamie L.; Honarmand, Kimia; Hu, Jia; Lang, Raynell; Stelfox, Henry T.; Fiest, Kirsten
    Abstract Introduction We explored associations between sociodemographic factors and public beliefs, behaviors, and information acquisition related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to identify how the experiences of subpopulations in Canada may vary. Methods We administered a national online survey through Ipsos Incorporated to adults residing in Canada. Sampling was stratified by population age, sex, and regional distributions. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses and test for differences based on gender, age, educational attainment, and household income using chi-squared tests, followed by weighted logistic regression. Results We collected 1996 eligible questionnaires between April 26th and May 1st, 2020. Respondents mean age was 50 years, 51% were women, 56% had a post-secondary degree, and 72% had a household income <$100,000. Our analysis found differences within the four demographic groups, with age effects most acutely evidenced. Respondents 65 years and older were more likely to perceive the pandemic as very serious, less likely to report declines in overall health, and more likely to intend to get vaccinated, compared to 18–29 year olds. Women overall were more likely to report negative outcomes than men, including stress due to the pandemic, and worsening social, mental/emotional, and spiritual health. Respondents 45 and older were more likely to seek and trust information from traditional Canadian news sources, while 18-29 year olds were more likely to seek and trust information on social media; overall, women and respondents with a post-secondary degree were more likely to access and trust online information from public health sites. Conclusion This study found important demographic differences in how adults living in Canada perceived the COVID-19 pandemic, the impacts on their health, and their preferences for information acquisition. Our results highlight the need to consider demographic characteristics in tailoring the format and information medium to improve large scale acceptance and uptake of mitigation and containment measures.