Explore the vast range of titles available.

People who are trans and gender-diverse are underserved by the healthcare system; one way to improve healthcare access is with peer healthcare navigators. We piloted two trans peer health navigators from April 2021 to March 2022 in a small Canadian province. The purpose of this study was to explore how trans peer navigators experienced their work and work environment through reflective journalling. The navigators journalled roughly weekly. They were encouraged to interrogate their own biases and to think about what was omitted from conversations with others. Each journal was treated as a qualitative case study, anonymized and analyzed thematically using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis. Six themes emerged: expected work, unexpected work, teamwork, lived experience, challenges, and systemic factors. These themes were complexly interwoven with a network of subthemes that frequently fell under multiple main themes and were highly emotionally charged, many both positively and negatively. The importance of navigators being transgender themselves was highlighted. The rewards came from being able to provide meaningful help to people in their community and the challenges came from not being respected by other healthcare providers and systemic barriers that prevented them from helping clients. The navigators successfully adapted their services to bridge some systemic barriers. This research has implications for improving both navigators’ and clients’ experiences.

Background Ensuring widespread COVID-19 vaccine uptake is a public health priority in Canada and globally, particularly within communities that exhibit lower uptake rates and are at a higher risk of infection. Public health units (PHUs) have leveraged many resources to promote the uptake of recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses. Understanding barriers and facilitators to vaccine uptake, and which strategies/resources have been used to address them to date, may help identify areas where further support could be provided. We sought to identify the strategies/resources used by PHUs to promote the uptake of the first and third doses of the COVID-19 vaccine among priority groups in their jurisdictions. We examined the alignment of these existing strategies/resources with behavioral science principles, to inform potential complementary strategies/resources. Methods We reviewed the online and in-person strategies/resources used by three PHUs in Ontario, Canada to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake among priority groups (Black and Eastern European populations, and/or neighbourhoods with low vaccine uptake or socioeconomic status). Strategies/resources were identified from PHU websites, social media, and PHU liaison. We used the Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy – which describes 93 different ways of supporting behaviour change – to categorise the types of strategies/resources used, and the Theoretical Domains Framework – which synthesises 14 factors that can be barriers or facilitators to decisions and actions – to categorise the barriers and facilitators addressed by strategies/resources. Results PHUs operationalised 21 out of 93 BCTs, ranging from 15 to 20 BCTs per PHU. The most frequently operationalised BCTs were found in strategies/resources that provided information about COVID-19 infection and vaccines, increased access to COVID-19 vaccination, and integrated social supports such as community ambassadors and engagement sessions with healthcare professionals. Identified BCTs aligned most frequently with addressing barriers and facilitators related to Knowledge, Environmental context and resources, and Beliefs about consequences domains. Conclusion PHUs have used several BCTs to address different barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake for priority groups. Opportunities should be pursued to broaden the scope of BCTs used (e.g., operationalizing the pros and cons BCT) and barriers/facilitators addressed in strategies/resources for ongoing and future COVID-19 vaccine uptake efforts among general and prioritised populations.

Objective Patients from equity-deserving populations, such as those who are from racialized communities, the 2SLGBTQIA + community, who are refugees or immigrants, and/or who have a disability, may experience a unique set of challenges accessing and receiving care through virtual models. The objective of this qualitative study was to describe physician perspectives on their experiences providing care to patients from equity-deserving communities and their family members who received care from a Virtual Emergency Department (ED) in Toronto, Canada. Methods We interviewed 14 Virtual ED physicians from different sites across the Greater Toronto Area. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore ED physicians’ experiences with treating patients from equity-deserving populations who used the Virtual ED. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the interview data. Results Three themes were identified, which included: (1) Considerations for Virtual ED Inclusivity; (2) Beliefs about Compassionate Virtual ED Care Practices; and (3) Proposed Innovations for Advancing Equity through Virtual ED Care. An overarching and connecting theme was accessibility. Across these themes, providers highlighted factors that influenced Virtual ED accessibility for many equity-deserving populations. Conclusions The Virtual ED holds many promising applications for the delivery of equitable and compassionate care for equity-deserving populations. There are several patient, provider and system level issues that need to be considered to ensure its inclusivity and accessibility. One suggestion for innovation includes creating community hubs offering access to the Virtual ED to make it easier for equity-deserving populations who may face barriers to using it or need a safe space to do so.

Health inequalities amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately affected racialized and equity-deserving communities across Canada. In the Municipality of Peel, existing data, while limited, illustrates that individuals from racialized and equity-deserving communities continue to suffer, receive delayed care, and die prematurely. In response to these troubling statistics, grassroots community advocacy has called on health systems leaders in Peel to work with community and non-profit organizations to address the critical data and infrastructure gaps that hinder addressing the social determinants of health in the region. To support these advocacy efforts, we used a community-based participatory research approach to understand how we might build a data collection ecosystem across sectors, alongside community residents and service providers, to accurately capture the data about the social determinants of health. This approach involved developing a community engagement council, defining the problem with the community, mapping what data is actively collected and what is excluded, and understanding experiences of sociodemographic data collection from community members and service providers. Guided by community voices, our study focused on sociodemographic data collection in the primary care context and identified which service providers use and collect these data, how data are used in their work, the facilitators and barriers to data use and collection. Additionally, we gained insight into how sociodemographic data collection could be respectful, safe, and properly governed from the perspectives of community members. From this study, we identify a set of eight recommendations for sociodemographic data collection and highlight limitations. This foundational community-based work will inform future research in establishing data governance in partnership with diverse and equity-deserving communities.

Background Vaccine hesitancy exists on a continuum ranging between complete adherence and complete refusal due to doubts or concerns within a heterogeneous group of individuals. Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contextual factors influencing attitudes and beliefs shaping COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, qualitative research with equity-deserving groups, accounting for unique lived experiences, remains a gap in the literature. We aim to identify and begin to understand and document the unique contextual factors shaping hesitancy by equity-deserving groups as it relates to relationships with government and health authorities. Methods Participants were recruited and interviewed between Aug-Dec 2021. Semi-structured interviews using a convergent interviewing technique were conducted with individuals from the general population, as well as individuals who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit, members of the LGBT2SQ + community, low-income Canadians, Black Canadians, and newcomers. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by a team of researchers. Memos were written following interviews and used to complement the thematic analysis of the interview data. Themes are presented in the results section. Results The rationale for hesitancy among equity-deserving groups is consistent with literature documenting hesitancy in the general population. Contextual factors surrounding equity-deserving groups’ attitudes and beliefs, however, are unique and relate to a history of oppression, discrimination, and genocide. We identified factors unique to subgroups; for example, religious or fatalistic beliefs among participant who identify as FNMI, fear associated with lack of testing and speed of vaccines’ production among participants who identify as FNMI, Black, and LGBT2SQ + , distrust of the healthcare system for LGBT2SQ + and Black Canadians, and distrust of the government and opposition to vaccine mandates for participating who identify as LGBT2SQ + , low-income, FNMI, or Black Canadian. Newcomers stood out as very trusting of the government and accepting of COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions While our data on vaccine hesitancy largely mirror concerns reported in the vast body of literature citing rationale for COVID-19 hesitancy in high-income countries, the contextual factors identified in our work point to the need for wider systemic change. Our results may be used to support efforts, beyond tailored promotion campaigns, to support the confident acceptance of vaccines for COVID-19 and the acceptance of novel vaccines as future infectious diseases emerge.

Background People who use substances (PWUS) encounter significant barriers to accessing care for their complex health needs. As a result, emergency departments (EDs) often become the first point of healthcare access for many PWUS and are a crucial setting for the study of health inequities. This study aimed to understand the ED healthcare experiences of PWUS with the intent of informing ways of improving the delivery of equitable care. Methods This qualitative study was part of a larger cross-sectional, mixed-methods study that examined ED experiences among diverse underserved and equity-deserving groups (EDGs) within Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Participants shared and self-interpreted a story about a memorable ED or UCC visit within the preceding 24 months. Data from participants who self-identified as having substance use experiences was analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Results Of the 1973 unique participants who completed the survey, 246 participants self-identified as PWUS and were included in the analysis. Most participants were < 45 years of age (61%), male (53%), and white/European (57%). 45% identified as a person with a disability and 39% frequently struggled to make ends meet. Themes were determined at the patient, provider, and system levels. Patient: history of substance use and experience of intersectionality negatively influenced participants’ anticipation and perception of care. Provider: negative experiences were linked to assumption making , feelings of stigma and discrimination , and negative perceptions of provider care . Whereas positive experiences were linked to positive perceptions of provider care . System: timeliness of care and the perception of inadequate mental health resources negatively impacted participants’ care experience. Overall, these themes shaped participants’ trust of ED staff, their desire to seek care, and their perception of the care quality received. Conclusions PWUS face significant challenges when seeking care in the ED. Given that EDs are a main site of healthcare utilization, there is an urgent need to better support staff in the ED to improve care experiences among PWUS. Based on the findings, three recommendations are proposed: (1) Integration of an equity-oriented approach into the ED, (2) Widespread training on substance use, and (3) Investment in expert resources and services to support PWUS.

Background Many equity-deserving populations, including those facing structural health inequities, lack support to participate in clinical trials while facing barriers to participation. Two approaches—patient engagement (PE) and shared decision-making (SDM)—can help trialists better understand and address such barriers. PE can improve the relevance of trials to silenced communities while SDM can align participation decisions among socially disadvantaged groups with their values, needs, and preferences, which may help overcome health inequities. Further, Indigenous community engagement is vital to address the effects of colonialism and promote Indigenous self-determination and health equity. The extent to which existing reviews have identified common barriers, enablers, and strategies across equity-deserving groups and discussed PE and SDM concepts is unclear. Purpose (1) To describe which equity-deserving populations have been the focus of reviews on clinical trial participation and which barriers, enablers, and strategies are relevant to them (2) to explore the extent to which PE and SDM are discussed in these reviews. Methods We searched for English-language reviews (including any study design) summarizing trial participation barriers, enablers, and/or strategies among equity-deserving populations in five peer-reviewed databases. We coded data on the (1) equity-deserving population(s) of focus, (2) barriers, enablers, or interventions/strategies mentioned, (3) PE reported, (4) Indigenous community engagement reported, and (5) SDM outcomes discussed. Results Findings from 100 reviews showed that some equity-deserving populations have been represented more than others (e.g., 76% on racially, ethnically, culturally, or linguistically diverse populations; 29% on sex and gender populations; 2% on educationally disadvantaged populations). More reviews described barriers (84%) than enablers (31%) or strategies to improve participation (69%). Forty-five reviews (45%) reported PE while 11 (11%) reported Indigenous community engagement. Many reviews (74%) mentioned SDM outcomes (i.e., 9/11 [81.8%] outcomes from Gillies et al.’s internationally agreed core outcome set); however, few reviews (29%) discussed SDM outcomes in detail. Conclusions Our findings suggest that PE and SDM could be more broadly applied among multiple equity-deserving groups to better serve disadvantaged communities. We advocate for an expanded focus on less-researched equity-deserving groups, improved PE reporting, prioritization of patient outcomes, and engagement with patients and Indigenous communities. Plain English summary Background Many equity-deserving groups, such as people who experience structural barriers to health, face challenges with participating in clinical trials. These challenges can come from different levels, like personal, organizational, or system-wide barriers. Two approaches to support more inclusive participation are patient engagement (PE), i.e., working in partnership with patients and communities throughout the research process, and shared decision-making (SDM), i.e., helping people make informed choices that reflect their values and needs. Methods We conducted a review of reviews about equity-deserving groups participating in trials. We searched five scientific databases for published reviews in English. We coded data from the reviews using several established frameworks to see what helps or prevents equity-deserving groups from joining trials and how often PE and SDM were part of those studies. Results Of 100 reviews examined, most focused on racial, ethnic, cultural, or language diversity (76%) and sex or gender (29%). Few focused on education level (2%). Many reviews described barriers (84%), but fewer mentioned enablers (31%) or strategies (69%) to improve participation. Under half of reviews (45%) mentioned PE, 11 (11%) mentioned Indigenous community engagement. Many reviews mentioned SDM (74%), but few went into detail (29%). Conclusions Our results shows that some equity-deserving groups have been included in research about trial participation more than others. We recommend future research incorporate patient and community engagement, report it better, and focus on SDM to make trials even more inclusive.

Background Supporting participation decisions and experiences in clinical trials is a persistent challenge that could be improved by two areas: patient engagement (PE), which involves actively collaborating with patients to enhance research relevance and value, and shared decision-making (SDM), which involves helping individuals make evidence-informed, values-based decisions about participation. The extent to which PE and SDM have informed trial recruitment interventions has not been synthesized. Objectives We aimed to explore (1) how PE informed recruitment interventions, both in general and among equity-deserving populations, and whether demographic differences existed between studies using and not using PE, and (2) how SDM has informed recruitment interventions, both in general and among equity-deserving populations. Methods We identified randomized and quasi-randomized recruitment intervention studies from a prior Cochrane review and the Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls database. We assessed recruitment interventions for reporting of PE and coded the level at which PE occurred (‘substantive engagement’, ‘limited engagement’, ‘both’, ‘unclear’, or ‘no engagement’) and the areas in which PE occurred (development of the research question, intervention design, selecting outcomes, dissemination/implementation, or ‘other’). We coded SDM across six domains: providing information about options, probabilities, clarifying outcomes, guidance in deliberation, using evidence, and disclosure and transparency. Results Of the 122 recruitment intervention studies included, 37 (30.3%) reported PE, although limited engagement was most common ( n  = 22; 59.5%). PE was most often used in designing the recruitment intervention ( n  = 32; 86.5%) followed by ‘other’ ( n  = 11; 29.7%; e.g., PE supporting participant recruitment efforts), developing the research question ( n  = 2; 5.4%), selecting outcomes ( n  = 3; 8.1%), and dissemination/implementation ( n  = 3; 8.1%). SDM was occasionally reported ( n  = 25; 20.5%), most commonly as ‘providing information about options’ ( n  = 11; 9.0%). Equity-deserving populations were the focus of 24 studies (19.7%); 11 of these also used PE (9.0%). Conclusions Efforts to improve trial participation have not been informed by literature around patient lived experiences. Recruitment interventions infrequently reported any PE and occasionally mentioned SDM. When PE was mentioned, it was usually limited. These results hold among studies involving equity-deserving populations. Greater consideration of PE and SDM could enhance trial recruitment, research impact, trial participation experiences, and equity in trial recruitment. Plain English abstract Background Getting people to participate in clinical trials is challenging. Two approaches that can help are working closely with patients to ensure the research is important to them (called patient engagement, or PE) and helping them understand their options to make informed choices about whether to participate (called shared decision-making, or SDM). Objectives We wanted to find out how PE and SDM are used when recruiting people for trials in general and when recruiting populations that are often left out of trials. We also wanted to find out the differences between studies that use PE and those that do not. Methods We reviewed studies about how people are recruited into trials. We checked whether these studies used PE, how engaged patients were (ranging from very engaged to not engaged at all), and where they were engaged, such as helping to choose the research question or sharing results. We also reviewed how SDM was used, such as providing information about options or using evidence to help people decide. Results Of 122 studies, only 37 mentioned PE, mostly at low levels of engagement. PE was mostly used to help design the recruitment strategy. Only 25 studies mentioned SDM, mainly by providing people with information. Only 24 studies focused on groups that are often overlooked, and only 11 of these used PE. Conclusions Most efforts to ask people to join trials have not reflected patients’ real-life experiences. Using PE and SDM more effectively could help more people participate and lead to fairer recruitment.

Background Emergency departments (EDs) serve an integral role in healthcare, particularly for vulnerable populations. However, marginalized groups often report negative ED experiences, including stigmatizing attitudes and behaviours. We engaged with historically marginalized patients to better understand their ED care experiences. Method Participants were invited to complete an anonymous mixed-methods survey about a previous ED experience. We analysed quantitative data including controls and equity-deserving groups (EDGs) - those who self-identified as: (a) Indigenous; (b) having a disability; (c) experiencing mental health issues; (d) a person who uses substances; (e) a sexual and gender minority; (f) a visible minority; (g) experiencing violence; and/or (h) facing homelessness - to identify differences in their perspectives. Differences between EDGs and controls were calculated with chi squared tests, geometric means with confidence ellipses, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results We collected a total of 2114 surveys from 1973 unique participants, 949 controls and 994 who identified as equity-deserving. Members of EDGs were more likely to attribute negative feelings to their ED experience (p < 0.001), to indicate that their identity impacted the care received (p < 0.001), and that they felt disrespected and/or judged while in the ED (p < 0.001). Members of EDGs were also more likely to indicate that they had little control over healthcare decisions (p < 0.001) and that it was more important to be treated with kindness/respect than to receive the best possible care (p < 0.001). Conclusion Members of EDGs were more likely to report negative ED care experiences. Equity-deserving individuals felt judged and disrespected by ED staff and felt disempowered to make decisions about their care. Next steps will include contextualizing findings using participants’ qualitative data and identifying how to improve ED care experiences among EDGs to make it more inclusive and better able to meet their healthcare needs.

Introduction Vulnerably housed individuals access emergency departments (EDs) more frequently than the general population. Despite Canada’s universal public health care system, vulnerably housed persons face structural barriers to care and experience discrimination from healthcare providers. This study examines how vulnerably housed persons perceive their experience of care in the ED and Urgent Care Center (UCC) in Kingston, Ontario and aims to develop strategies for improving care for this group. Methods As part of a larger mixed-methods study, narratives were collected from participants attending the ED/UCC as well as community-based partner organizations, asking them to describe an experience of a recent ED visit (< 24 months). Participants could identify as members of up to three equity-deserving groups (EDGs) (for example homeless, part of an ethnic minority, having a disability, experiencing mental health issues). Coding and thematic analysis were completed for the experiences of participants who identified as being vulnerably housed ( n  = 171). Results were presented back to individuals with lived experience and service providers working with clients with unstable housing. Results Participants reported judgement related to a past or presumed history of mental health or substance use and based on physical appearance. They also often felt unheard and that they were treated as less than human by healthcare providers. Lack of effective communication about the ED process, wait times, diagnosis, and treatment led to negative care experiences. Participants reported positive experiences when their autonomy in care-decision making was respected. Furthermore, having a patient-centered approach to care and addressing specific patient needs, identities and priorities led to positive care experiences. Conclusions The ED care experiences of vulnerably housed persons may be improved through healthcare provider training related to trauma-informed and patient-centered care and communication strategies in the ED. Another potential strategy to improve care is to have advocates accompany vulnerably housed persons to the ED. Finally, improving access to primary care may lead to reduced ED visits and better longitudinal care for vulnerably housed persons.