Engaging Young Fathers in Research through Photo-Interviewing

Although conducting interviews is the most popular research strategy in qualitative research, we question whether it is the best strategy to use with young fathers and other populations who may be less willing to share personal experiences and thoughts with an unknown researcher. The reluctance of young fathers to engage in research leads to the omission of important perspectives and inadvertently results in young fathers\u27 being understudied and unwittingly excluded from support programming and services. In this paper, we describe our experiences of using two different research strategies with young fathers: conventional in-depth interviews (i.e., interviews that rely on words only) and photo-interviewing (i.e., using photographs as props during an interview). We found that photo-interviewing contributed to young fathers\u27 comfort during the research process, provided them a sense of agency, and possibly enriched the quality of the data. While we do not argue that one data collection strategy is necessarily better than the other, we would like to caution researchers against using conventional interviews as a default data collection strategy with marginalized, vulnerable, or less verbal populations for whom interviewing may not be the most suitable data collection strategy and to encourage researchers to explore alternative options

Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods : views of community residents

The adaptation phase is one component of a study funded as a grant proposal entitled 'Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods' by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. Aisha Lofters is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award, as a Clinician Scientist by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, and as Chair in Implementation Science at the Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers at Women’s College Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Andrew Pinto holds a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Applied Public Health Chair and is supported as a Clinician-Scientist in the Department of Family and Community Medicine, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, and supported by the Department of Family and Community Medicine, St. Michael’s Hospital, and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital. He is also the Associate Director for Clinical Research at the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network. Lawrence Paszat is supported by a Clinician Scientist award funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.Peer reviewe

Building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in public health : a cluster randomized trial

This study was funded as a grant proposal entitled ‘Advancing Cancer Prevention Among Deprived Neighbourhoods’ by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant #704042 and by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research Institute of Cancer grant OCP #145450. AL is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award, and as Chair in Implementation Science at the Peter Gilgan Centre for Women’s Cancers at Women’s College Hospital in partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society.Background The BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) intervention was designed to integrate the approach to chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care and demonstrated effective in a previous randomized trial. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the BETTER HEALTH intervention, a public health adaptation of BETTER, at improving participation in chronic disease prevention and screening actions for residents of low-income neighbourhoods in a cluster randomized trial, with ten low-income neighbourhoods in Durham Region Ontario randomized to immediate intervention vs. wait-list. The unit of analysis was the individual, and eligible participants were adults age 40–64 years residing in the neighbourhoods. Public health nurses trained as “prevention practitioners” held one prevention-focused visit with each participant. They provided participants with a tailored prevention prescription and supported them to set health-related goals. The primary outcome was a composite index: the number of evidence-based actions achieved at six months as a proportion of those for which participants were eligible at baseline. Results Of 126 participants (60 in immediate arm; 66 in wait-list arm), 125 were included in analyses (1 participant withdrew consent). In both arms, participants were eligible for a mean of 8.6 actions at baseline. At follow-up, participants in the immediate intervention arm met 64.5% of actions for which they were eligible versus 42.1% in the wait-list arm (rate ratio 1.53 [95% confidence interval 1.22–1.84]). Conclusion Public health nurses using the BETTER HEALTH intervention led to a higher proportion of identified evidence-based prevention and screening actions achieved at six months for people living with socioeconomic disadvantage.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761

How Could Children’s Storybooks Promote Empathy? A Conceptual Framework Based on Developmental Psychology and Literary Theory

This conceptual paper proposes a framework for understanding the developmental mechanisms and literary characteristics that bind children’s storybooks with empathy. The article begins with a taxonomy of empathy composed of three key continuous dimensions: cognitive/emotional empathy, empathy for in-group and out-group members and empathy with positive and negative consequences. Insights from developmental psychology and literary theory form the basis for an interdisciplinary framework based on three premises: (1) book-reading can support empathy if it fosters in-group/out-group identification and minimizes in-group/out-group bias; (2) identification with characters who are dissimilar from the readers is the most valuable contribution of children’s storybooks to cognitive empathy; and (3) the quality of language positions children’s storybooks as an exceptional, but not exclusive, empathy-building form of fictional narratives. Implications for future intervention and empirical work are provided