Training physicians in behavioural change counseling: A systematic review

Background: Poor health behaviours (e.g., smoking, physical inactivity) represent major underlying causes of non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs). Prescriptive behaviour change interventions employed by physicians show limited effectiveness. Physician training in evidence-based behaviour change counselling (BCC) may improve behavioural risk factor management, but the efficacy and feasibility of current programs remains unclear. Objective: (1) To systematically review the efficacy of BCC training programs for physicians, and (2) to describe program content, dose and structure, informing better design and dissemination. Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines, a database search up to January 2018, yielded 1889 unique articles, screened by 2 authors; 9 studies met inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. Results: 100% of studies reported significant improvements in BCC skills among physicians, most programs targeting provider-patient collaboration, supporting patient autonomy, and use of open questions to elicit “change-talk”. Limitation included: poor reporting quality, high program heterogeneity, small sample sizes, 78% of studies having no comparison group, and less than 30% of skills taught being formally assessed. Conclusion: Training programs were efficacious, but methodological weaknesses limit the ability to determine content and delivery. Caution is necessary when interpreting the results

Healthcare provider knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices surrounding the prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in North America: protocol for a mixed-method systematic review

Background Evidence from diverse areas of medicine (e.g., cardiovascular disease, diabetes) indicates that healthcare providers (HCPs) often do not adhere to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) despite a clear indication to implement recommendations—a phenomenon commonly termed clinical inertia. There are a variety of reasons for clinical inertia, but HCP-related factors (e.g., knowledge, motivation, agreement with guidelines) are the most salient and amenable to intervention aimed to improve adherence. CPGs have been developed to support the safe and effective prescription of opioid medication for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. The extent of physician uptake and adherence to such guidelines is not yet well understood. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the published evidence about knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and practices that HCPs hold regarding the prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Methods An experienced information specialist will perform searches of CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. The Cochrane library, PROSPERO, and the Joanna Briggs Institute will be searched for systematic reviews. Searches will be performed from inception to the present. Quantitative and qualitative study designs that report on HCP knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, or practices in North America will be eligible for inclusion. Studies reporting on interventions to improve HCP adherence to opioid prescribing CPGs will also be eligible for inclusion. Two trained graduate-level research assistants will independently screen articles for inclusion, perform data extraction, and perform risk of bias and quality assessment using recommended tools. Confidence in qualitative evidence will be evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Qualitative Reviews (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Confidence in quantitative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Discussion The ultimate goal of this work is to support interventions aiming to optimize opioid prescribing practices in order to prevent opioid-related morbidity and mortality without restricting a HCP’s ability to select the most appropriate treatment for an individual patient

Ending the Pandemic: How Behavioural Science Can Help Optimize Global COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake

Governments, public health officials and pharmaceutical companies have all mobilized resources to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns, social distancing, and personal protective behaviours have been helpful but have shut down economies and disrupted normal activities. Vaccinations protect populations from COVID-19 and allow a return to pre-pandemic ways of living. However, vaccine development, distribution and promotion have not been sufficient to ensure maximum vaccine uptake. Vaccination is an individual choice and requires acceptance of the need to be vaccinated in light of any risks. This paper presents a behavioural sciences framework to promote vaccine acceptance by addressing the complex and ever evolving landscape of COVID-19. Effective promotion of vaccine uptake requires understanding the context-specific barriers to acceptance. We present the AACTT framework (Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time) to identify the action needed to be taken, the person needed to act, the context for the action, as well as the target of the action within a timeframe. Once identified a model for identifying and overcoming barriers, called COM-B (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation lead to Behaviour), is presented. This analysis identifies issues associated with capability, opportunity and motivation to act. These frameworks can be used to facilitate action that is fluid and involves policy makers, organisational leaders as well as citizens and families

From design to action: participatory approach to capacity building needs for local overdose response plans

Abstract Background In response to the rise in opioid-related deaths, communities across Ontario have developed opioid or overdose response plans to address issues at the local level. Public Health Ontario (PHO) leads the Community Opioid / Overdose Capacity Building (COM-CAP) project, which aims to reduce overdose-related harms at the community level by working with communities to identify, develop, and evaluate capacity building supports for local needs around overdose planning. The ‘From Design to Action’ co-design workshop used a participatory design approach to engage communities in identifying the requirements for capacity building support. Methods A participatory approach (co-design) provided opportunity for collaborative discussion around capacity building needs at the community level. The co-design workshop included three structured collaborative activities to 1) prioritize scenarios that illustrated various challenges associated with community overdose response planning, 2) prioritize the challenges within each scenario and 3) prioritize the supports to address each of these challenges. It was conducted with fifty-two participants involved in opioid/overdose-related response plans in Ontario. Participatory materials were informed by the results of a situational assessment (SA) data gathering process, including survey, interview, and focus group data. A voting system, including dot stickers and discussion notes, was applied to identify priority supports and delivery mechanisms. Results At the workshop, key challenges and top-priority supports were identified, for development and implementation. The prioritized challenges were organized into five categories of capacity building supports addressing: 1) stigma & equity; 2) trust-based relationships, consensus building & on-going communication; 3) knowledge development & on-going access to information and data; 4) tailored strategies and plan adaptation to changing structures and local context; and 5) structural enablers and responsive governance. Conclusion Using a participatory approach, the workshop provided an opportunity for sharing, generating, and mobilizing knowledge to address research-practice gaps at the community level for opioid response planning. The application of health design methods such as the ‘From Design to Action’ co-design workshop supports teams to gain a deeper understanding of needs for capacity building as well as illustrating the application of participatory approaches in identifying capacity building needs for complex public health issues such as the overdose crisis

A call for consensus in defining efficacy in clinical trials for opioid addiction: combined results from a systematic review and qualitative study in patients receiving pharmacological assisted therapy for opioid use disorder

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

Impacts of medical and non-medical cannabis on the health of older adults: Findings from a scoping review of the literature.

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

Clinical practice guideline and systematic review details.

Clinical practice guideline and systematic review details.</p