Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants of health in metropolitan areas in Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:Understanding inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with the social determinants of health could help the development of effective mitigation strategies that are responsive to local transmission dynamics. This study aims to quantify social determinants of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases across 16 census metropolitan areas (hereafter, cities) in 4 Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.Methods:We used surveillance data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and census data for social determinants at the level of the dissemination area (DA). We calculated Gini coefficients to determine the overall geographic heterogeneity of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in each city, and calculated Gini covariance coefficients to determine each city’s heterogeneity by each social determinant (income, education, housing density and proportions of visible minorities, recent immigrants and essential workers). We visualized heterogeneity using Lorenz (concentration) curves.Results:We observed geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases in cities, as half of the cumulative cases were concentrated in DAs containing 21%–35% of their population, with the greatest geographic heterogeneity in Ontario cities (Gini coefficients 0.32–0.47), followed by British Columbia (0.23–0.36), Manitoba (0.32) and Quebec (0.28–0.37). Cases were disproportionately concentrated in areas with lower income and educational attainment, and in areas with a higher proportion of visible minorities, recent immigrants, high-density housing and essential workers. Although a consistent feature across cities was concentration by the proportion of visible minorities, the magnitude of concentration by social determinant varied across cities.Interpretation:Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases was observed in all of the included cities, but the pattern by social determinants varied. Geographically prioritized allocation of resources and services should be tailored to the local drivers of inequalities in transmission in response to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 epidemic in Canada has varied in size and trajectory across provinces and large cities.^1,2 At the national level³ and within regions,^4,5 the burden of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and severe COVID-19 outcomes has fallen disproportionately on socially and economically marginalized communities. ⁶ Social determinants of health refer to nonmedical factors influencing health outcomes, and structural determinants encompass cultural norms, policies and institutions that generate social stratification and determine socioeconomic position.^7,8 In Canada and elsewhere, data have consistently highlighted the importance of determinants such as household size and density, work in essential services and structural racism (measured by proxy) in the relative risk of COVID-19.^9–17Understanding the factors associated with geographic patterns of transmission within cities can help identify the populations and, specifically, the contexts with the greatest risks. Geographic analyses can enable better allocation of resources, tailoring of policies and implementation of context-specific strategies to more effectively and efficiently curb local transmission. ¹⁸ Although respiratory virus transmission is often geographically clustered within a city,¹⁹ the early public health response to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada did little to take within-city clustering into account.^20,21 Similarly, few studies have quantified and compared the geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants across Canada, and the extent to which the magnitude of inequalities might vary among cities and provinces.^19,22 We therefore sought to quantify and compare the magnitude of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by area-level social determinants of health across metropolitan areas in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, Canada.     

Hospital factors associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery: an ecological study

Background:Recommendations for deliveries of pregnant patients with a previous cesarean delivery and the type of hospitals deemed safe for these deliveries have evolved in recent years, although no studies have examined hospital factors and associated safety. We sought to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients with a previous cesarean delivery by hospital tier and volume.Methods:We carried out an ecological study of singleton live births delivered at term gestation to patients with a previous cesarean delivery in all Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec), 2013–2019. We obtained data from the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The primary outcomes were severe maternal morbidity or mortality (SMMM), and serious neonatal morbidity or mortality (SNMM). We used regression modelling to examine hospital tier (tier 4 hospitals being those that provide the highest level of care) and volume; we also identified hospitals with high rates of SMMM and SNMM using within-tier comparisons and comparisons with the overall rate.Results:We included 235 442 deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery; SMMM and SNMM rates were 14.6 per 1000 deliveries and 4.6 per 1000 live births, respectively. Among patients with a parity of 1, SMMM rates were lower in tier 1 hospitals (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.89) and higher in tier 4 hospitals (adjusted IRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05–1.91) than in tier 2 hospitals; SNMM rates did not differ by hospital tier. Rates of SNMM increased with increasing hospital volume (adjusted IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.04) and increasing rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (adjusted IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04). Most hospitals had relatively low SMMM and SNMM rates, although a few hospitals in each tier and volume category had significantly higher rates than others.Interpretation:Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients with a previous cesarean delivery showed no clear pattern of decreasing SMMM and SNMM with increasing tiers of service and hospital volume. All hospitals, irrespective of tier or size, should continually review their rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The approach to delivery for patients with a previous cesarean delivery has undergone substantial changes over the last few decades in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) in Canada increased rapidly, from less than 5% of deliveries in the late 1970s to peak at more than 35% in the mid-1990s.^1–4 However, this trend reversed sharply after studies in the mid-1990s showed that attempted VBAC (as opposed to elective repeat cesarean delivery) was associated with higher rates of severe maternal morbidity and of fetal and infant morbidity and mortality.^5–9 The decline has partly reversed after the release of a guideline from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) in 2005, and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference in 2010, which affirmed that patients with 1 previous transverse lower-segment cesarean section and no contraindications could be offered a trial of labour with appropriate discussion of risks and benefits.^10,11Recommendations regarding hospitals deemed safe for delivering patients with a previous cesarean delivery have also evolved. The 1998 and 1999 guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) required hospitals attempting trials of labour to have “ready availability of emergency care” or “immediate availability of emergency care.”^12,13 After the publication of these guidelines, about 30% of hospitals in the US stopped offering trial-of-labour services to patients with a previous cesarean delivery because they could not provide immediate surgical and anesthesia services, which compelled many patients who had opted for a trial of labour to travel to hospitals far from their homes and families.^14–16 More recently, guidelines have attempted to balance clinical safety with the challenges associated with such social disruption. The current ACOG guideline states that a trial of labour can be attempted in a level 1 maternity care facility (i.e., a hospital providing basic obstetric services), which has “the ability to begin emergency cesarean delivery within a time interval that best incorporates maternal and fetal risks and benefits.”¹⁷ Similarly, the current SOGC guideline states that hospitals providing trial-of-labour services should have “the resources to perform an emergency cesarean section.”¹⁸ This change in recommendations has led to an increase in the number of hospitals that offer trials of labour, though concerns about inadequate access to such delivery options persist.^19,20Although clinical guidelines regarding hospitals deemed safe for delivering patients with a previous cesarean delivery have changed in recent years, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated hospital factors and associated safety issues. We sought to evaluate maternal and infant outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery by tier of obstetric service and hospital delivery volume.     

Association between virtual primary care and emergency department use during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario,Canada

Background:Uptake of virtual care increased substantially during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a shift from in-person to virtual visits by primary care physicians was associated with increased use of emergency departments among their enrolled patients.Methods:We conducted an observational study of monthly virtual visits and emergency department visits from Apr. 1, 2020, to Mar. 31, 2021, using administrative data from Ontario, Canada. We used multivariable regression analysis to estimate the association between the proportion of a physician’s visits that were delivered virtually and the number of emergency department visits among their enrolled patients.Results:The proportion of virtual visits was higher among female, younger and urban physicians, and the number of emergency department visits was lower among patients of female and urban physicians. In an unadjusted analysis, a 1% increase in a physician’s proportion of virtual visits was found to be associated with 11.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.1–11.8) fewer emergency department visits per 1000 rostered patients. After controlling for covariates, we observed no statistically significant change in emergency department visits per 1% increase in the proportion of virtual visits (0.2, 95% CI −0.5 to 0.9).Interpretation:We did not find evidence that patients substituted emergency department visits in the context of decreased availability of in-person care with their family physician during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should focus on the long-term impact of virtual care on access and quality of patient care.

Access and continuity are important health system characteristics for the prevention and management of chronic diseases and treatment of nonurgent acute concerns.^1,2 Virtual care has the potential to improve both of these characteristics. It has also been associated with improved therapeutic effects, efficiency gains, patient satisfaction and compliance.³ Despite these potential benefits, virtual care was not widely adopted in Canada before the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2018, only 4% of family physicians in Canada were offering video visits.⁴ Some prepandemic studies found reduced quality and inconsistent results regarding patient experiences with virtual care, even with improved access.^3,5 The pandemic pushed health care systems to rapidly implement virtual primary care; physicians in Canada were directed to restrict in-office visits and provide care virtually whenever possible.⁶ One Ontario-based study found a 5600% increase in virtual visits early in the pandemic, while in-office visits decreased by 79%, compared with the same period in 2019.⁷ Several Canadian studies also reported that emergency department visits declined during the first wave of the pandemic, possibly owing to avoidance of in-person urgent care from fear of contracting SARS-CoV-2.^8–10In later stages of the pandemic, questions arose about the quality of virtual care and the broader system effects of reduced access to in-person care, such as patients substituting emergency department visits when in-person care options were unavailable.^11–13 The impact of virtual care on emergency department use has been studied elsewhere, but we are not aware of published studies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Six studies found that virtual care had no impact on use of emergency departments, as described in a review article, but 1 study reported that nurse consultations via telephone were associated with increased emergency department visits.¹⁴ Observational studies found no association between virtual care and subsequent or reduced emergency department use.^15,16 Several studies found that patients self-reported that they would use the emergency department 4%–12% of the time if no virtual care options were available.^15,17,18We aimed to evaluate whether a shift from in-person to virtual visits by primary care physicians in patient enrolment practices was associated with increased use of emergency departments among their enrolled patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Outcomes associated with planned place of birth among women with low-risk pregnancies

Background:Previous studies have shown that planned home birth is associated with a decreased likelihood of intrapartum intervention with no difference in neonatal outcomes compared with planned hospital birth. The purpose of our study was to evaluate different birth settings by comparing neonatal mortality, morbidity and rates of birth interventions between planned home and planned hospital births in Ontario, Canada.Methods:We used a provincial database of all midwifery-booked pregnancies between 2006 and 2009 to compare women who planned home birth at the onset of labour to a matched cohort of women with low-risk pregnancies who had planned hospital births attended by midwives. We conducted subgroup analyses by parity. Our primary outcome was stillbirth, neonatal death (< 28 d) or serious morbidity (Apgar score < 4 at 5 min or resuscitation with positive pressure ventilation and cardiac compressions).Results:We compared 11 493 planned home births and 11 493 planned hospital births. The risk of our primary outcome did not differ significantly by planned place of birth (relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–1.55). These findings held true for both nulliparous (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.62–1.73) and multiparous women (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.49–2.05). All intrapartum interventions were lower among planned home births.Interpretation:Compared with planned hospital birth, planned home birth attended by midwives in a jurisdiction where home birth is well-integrated into the health care system was not associated with a difference in serious adverse neonatal outcomes but was associated with fewer intrapartum interventions.In Ontario, Canada, the College of Midwives of Ontario has regulated midwifery since 1994, and increasing numbers of women with low obstetrical risk and their newborns receive care in a publicly funded, midwifery-led continuity of care model.¹ Midwives have admission and discharge privileges at their local hospitals and are able to consult or transfer care to other health care providers if required. In Ontario, midwives attend a small proportion of all births in the province (10%), and about 20% of the births they attend take place at home.² A comprehensive record is maintained for every woman and infant in a midwife’s care. Until 2009, this record was submitted to the provincial Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC) through the Ontario Midwifery Program to access reimbursement for care provided.In the last century, Western culture has come to view hospital birth as safer than home birth.³ Recently, however, the value of hospital birth for all women with low-risk pregnancies has come into question; it has been suggested that in the absence of benefit, a planned hospital birth for this population may increase the use of intrapartum interventions, including cesarean delivery.^4–7 Even though recent studies comparing planned home and hospital births have had moderate sample sizes, they are individually limited in their ability to report definitively on rare outcomes such as death. Owing to a lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to show that restricting a woman’s freedom to choose a place of birth prevents harm, the authors of a 2012 Cochrane review of planned hospital versus planned home births concluded that home birth services with collaborative medical backup should be established and offered to women with low-risk pregnancies in all jurisdictions.⁸ This conclusion, along with findings from the large English Birthplace Cohort Study,⁴ may be what prompted the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England to update its intrapartum care guidelines to recommend that, for women at low risk of birth-associated complications, home birth should be considered a generally safe option.⁹ With the paucity of information derived from RCTs,⁸ observational studies are essential to continue to inform and monitor maternal and infant outcomes for women at low obstetrical risk who plan home or hospital birth, and to continue to provide pregnant women with quality information about choice of birthplace.The primary purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the risk of stillbirth or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity among women at low obstetrical risk whose deliveries were attended by midwives and who had planned a home birth at the onset of labour, compared with women at low obstetrical risk who planned a hospital birth at the onset of labour. In addition, we also compared the incidence of maternal death and morbidity, birth interventions and breastfeeding between planned home births and planned hospital births.     

Risk of interpersonal violence during and after pregnancy among people with schizophrenia: a population-based cohort study

Background:Schizophrenia is associated with increased risk of experiencing interpersonal violence. Little is known about risk specifically around the time of pregnancy.Methods:This population-based cohort study included all individuals (aged 15–49 yr) listed as female on their health cards who had a singleton birth in Ontario, Canada, between 2004 and 2018. We compared those with and without schizophrenia on their risk of an emergency department (ED) visit for interpersonal violence in pregnancy or within 1 year postpartum. We adjusted relative risks (RRs) for demographics, prepregnancy history of substance use disorder and history of interpersonal violence. In a subcohort analysis, we used linked clinical registry data to evaluate interpersonal violence screening and self-reported interpersonal violence during pregnancy.Results:We included 1 802 645 pregnant people, 4470 of whom had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Overall, 137 (3.1%) of those with schizophrenia had a perinatal ED visit for interpersonal violence, compared with 7598 (0.4%) of those without schizophrenia, for an RR of 6.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.66–8.37) and an adjusted RR of 3.44 (95% CI 2.86–4.15). Results were similar when calculated separately for the pregnancy (adjusted RR 3.47, 95% CI 2.68–4.51) period and the first year postpartum (adjusted RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.75–4.33). Pregnant people with schizophrenia were equally likely to be screened for interpersonal violence (74.3% v. 73.8%; adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95–1.04), but more likely to self-report it (10.2% v. 2.4%; adjusted RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.61–4.38), compared with those without schizophrenia. Among patients who did not self-report interpersonal violence, schizophrenia was associated with an increased risk for a perinatal ED visit for interpersonal violence (4.0% v. 0.4%; adjusted RR 6.28, 95% CI 3.94–10.00).Interpretation:Pregnancy and postpartum are periods of higher risk for interpersonal violence among people with schizophrenia compared with those without schizophrenia. Pregnancy is a key period for implementing violence prevention strategies in this population.

Interpersonal violence is defined as the intentional use of force or power against others, including physical, sexual and psychological abuse perpetrated by strangers, acquaintances, family members or intimate partners.^1–5 Around the time of pregnancy, interpersonal violence affects not only the person experiencing it, but also the developing fetus or infant.⁶ Maternal consequences include acute injuries, chronic pain and psychiatric disorders.^7,8 Interpersonal violence is also associated with absent or delayed prenatal care, preterm birth, poor fetal growth, difficulties in maternal–child attachment, and maternal, fetal and neonatal death.^9–14Women with schizophrenia are at high risk of experiencing interpersonal violence during their lifetime from known and unknown perpetrators.^15–17 The lifetime prevalence of physical or sexual assault in this population is 20.7%, about 9 times the risk of those without serious mental illness.¹⁸ Many women with schizophrenia become pregnant, but little is known about their risk of experiencing interpersonal violence around this time.^19,20 In 2 small clinical studies, rates of self-reported interpersonal violence in pregnancy were upward of 20%.^21,22 However, these studies had no comparator groups without schizophrenia, included only self-reported risk and did not evaluate postpartum risk.We sought to compare the risk of an emergency department (ED) visit for interpersonal violence during pregnancy and until 1 year postpartum among people with and without schizophrenia in Ontario. We also sought to compare rates of interpersonal violence screening and disclosure in response to screening in these 2 groups, as well as risk for an ED visit for interpersonal violence in pregnancy or within the first year postpartum among those who did not self-report interpersonal violence. The latter question is important given that people with schizophrenia report being concerned that disclosure of any social issues during the perinatal period could possibly lead to undesirable consequences, such as child apprehension.^23,24     

Parents’ perspectives on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for children: a qualitative analysis

Background:Uptake of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged 5–11 years has been lower than anticipated in Canada. Although research has explored parental intentions toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children, parental decisions regarding vaccinations have not been studied in-depth. We sought to explore reasons why parents chose to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children against SARS-CoV-2 to better understand their decisions.Methods:We conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth individual interviews with a purposive sample of parents in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. We conducted interviews via telephone or video call from February to April 2022 and analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis.Results:We interviewed 20 parents. We found that parental attitudes toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for their children represented a complex continuum of concern. We identified 4 cross-cutting themes: the newness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the evidence supporting their use; the perceived politicization of guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; the social pressure surrounding SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations; and the weighing of individual versus collective benefits of vaccination. Parents found making a decision about vaccinating their child challenging and expressed difficulty sourcing and evaluating evidence, determining the trustworthiness of guidance, and balancing their own conceptions of health care decisions with societal expectations and political messaging.Interpretation:Parents’ experiences making decisions regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their children were complex, even for those who were supportive of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. These findings provide some explanation for the current patterns of uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among children in Canada; health care providers and public health authorities can consider these insights when planning future vaccine rollouts.

In November 2021, children aged 5–11 years became eligible to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Canada.¹ Before regulatory approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for children, about two-thirds of parents in Canada reported a willingness to have their child receive the vaccine.^2–4 However, uptake of the vaccine for this age group has been lower than initial evidence of parental intent suggested. As of October 2022, only 47% of 5- to 11-year-old children in Canada had received at least 1 dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and 42% had completed their primary series, compared with 90% and 88%, respectively, of people aged 12 years and older; rates in Ontario were similar.⁵Considerable research has evaluated parental intention to vaccinate their children against SARS-CoV-2 in Canada^2–4,6–8 and internationally,^9–16 but few studies have explored parents’ decisions to have their children vaccinated or not, once eligible.¹⁷ Given the observed discrepancy between parental intention and decision to seek vaccination for their children against SARS-CoV-2, it is critical to investigate how and why parents make their decisions. Understanding the factors that influence parents to seek vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for their children, or not, would help inform policies and interventions focused on this population and would help health care professionals understand parents’ perspectives and concerns.Vaccine hesitancy is defined by the World Health Organization as a “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services.”¹⁸ This definition is often used to describe individuals who have apprehension about vaccination, choose to delay vaccination or refuse vaccines entirely.¹⁹ Attitudes toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children have received much attention in the literature, but most studies have used quantitative surveys to measure vaccine hesitancy; in-depth qualitative evidence on the reasons underlying those attitudes and decisions is needed. Although the spectrum of hesitancy for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is acknowledged in the literature;^20–22 the full range and nature of these perspectives, and the experiences of parents related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decisions for their children, has not yet been explored. We sought to understand why parents chose to seek vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for their children or not, and to capture the nuances of these decisions.     

Effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary maternity care program on perinatal outcomes

Background:

The number of physicians providing maternity care in Canada is decreasing, and the rate of cesarean delivery is increasing. We evaluated the effect on perinatal outcomes of an interdisciplinary program designed to promote physiologic birth and encourage active involvement of women and their families in maternity care.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving 1238 women who attended the South Community Birth Program in Vancouver, Canada, from April 2004 to October 2010. The program offers comprehensive, collaborative, interdisciplinary care from family physicians, midwives, community health nurses and doulas to a multiethnic, low-income population. A comparison group, matched for neighbourhood of residence, maternal age, parity and gestational age at delivery, comprised 1238 women receiving standard care in community-based family physician, obstetrician and midwife practices. The primary outcome was the proportion of women who underwent cesarean delivery.

Results:

Compared with women receiving standard care, those in the birth program were more likely to be delivered by a midwife (41.9% v. 7.4%, p < 0.001) instead of an obstetrician (35.5% v. 69.6%, p < 0.001). The program participants were less likely than the matched controls to undergo cesarean delivery (relative risk [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68–0.84) and, among those with a previous cesarean delivery, more likely to plan a vaginal birth (RR 3.22, 95% CI 2.25–4.62). Length of stay in hospital was shorter in the program group for both the mothers (mean ± standard deviation 50.6 ± 47.1 v. 72.7 ± 66.7 h, p < 0.001) and the newborns (47.5 ± 92.6 v. 70.6 ± 126.7 h, p < 0.001). Women in the birth program were more likely than the matched controls to be breastfeeding exclusively at discharge (RR 2.10, 95% CI 1.85–2.39).

Interpretation:

Women attending a collaborative program of interdisciplinary maternity care were less likely to have a cesarean delivery, had shorter hospital stays on average and were more likely to breastfeed exclusively than women receiving standard care.In the last 2 decades, Canada has seen a dramatic reduction in the number of physicians providing maternity care.^1,2 Reasons for this decline have included liability concerns, lifestyle issues and perceived competence.³ A large proportion of obstetricians and family physicians who practise maternity care will reach retirement age in the next 10 years.⁴ The reduction in maternity care providers has been linked with hospital closures in rural settings and increasing difficulty in accessing obstetric care for women in all settings.⁴ Although the introduction of regulated midwifery promises some relief, midwives currently attend less than 10% of births.⁵Recent times have also seen a dramatic increase in the rates of interventions during childbirth, particularly cesarean delivery, which has risen from 17% in the 1990s to 28% in 2009 in Canada.⁶ This increase has occurred despite a lack of evidence that maternal and neonatal outcomes are improved with cesarean delivery.^7–10 Increasing rates of surgical delivery have placed an added burden on care provider resources, because of the associated intrapartum and postpartum complications¹¹ and increased length of stay in hospital.¹²In addition, increasing diversity, especially in urban settings, has made the delivery of maternity care more challenging. In the province of British Columbia, 16% of the population speaks neither official language at home.¹³ This proportion is as high as 32% in Vancouver, the province’s largest city and the setting of our study. There is evidence that immigrant women are at increased risk of receiving obstetric interventions and less likely to breastfeed.^14,15In response to these issues, the South Community Birth Program was established to provide comprehensive, collaborative maternity care from family physicians, midwives, community health nurses and doulas to a multiethnic, low-income population. The program aims to promote physiologic birth while encouraging women and their families to assume an active role in their maternity care. In the current study, we evaluated the impact of the program on perinatal outcomes.     

Population-based evaluation of the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir for reducing hospital admissions and mortality from COVID-19

Background:A randomized controlled trial involving a high-risk, unvaccinated population that was conducted before the Omicron variant emerged found that nirmatrelvir–ritonavir was effective in preventing progression to severe COVID-19. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in preventing severe COVID-19 while Omicron and its subvariants predominate.Methods:We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario that included all residents who were older than 17 years of age and had a positive polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 between Apr. 4 and Aug. 31, 2022. We compared patients treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir with patients who were not treated and measured the primary outcome of hospital admission from COVID-19 or all-cause death at 1–30 days, and a secondary outcome of all-cause death. We used weighted logistic regression to calculate weighted odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals (CIs) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to control for confounding.Results:The final cohort included 177 545 patients, 8876 (5.0%) who were treated with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir and 168 669 (95.0%) who were not treated. The groups were well balanced with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics after applying stabilized IPTW. We found that the occurrence of hospital admission or death was lower in the group given nirmatrelvir–ritonavir than in those who were not (2.1% v. 3.7%; weighted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.47–0.67). For death alone, the weighted OR was 0.49 (95% CI 0.39–0.62). Our findings were similar across strata of age, drug–drug interactions, vaccination status and comorbidities. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 case of severe COVID-19 was 62 (95% CI 43–80), which varied across strata.Interpretation:Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir was associated with significantly reduced odds of hospital admission and death from COVID-19, which supports use to treat patients with mild COVID-19 who are at risk for severe disease.

Antiviral therapies to treat COVID-19 and prevent severe outcomes such as hospital admission and death are valuable tools in the global pandemic response. The Evaluation of protease inhibition for COVID-19 in high-risk patients (EPIC-HR) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir identified an 89% reduction in progression to severe COVID-19 in participants at high risk of severe disease who were treated, compared with placebo.¹ However, the trial was conducted between July and December 2021, which was before the emergence of the Omicron variant that is less virulent than the progenitor virus,² and excluded vaccinated people, as well as those taking medications with potential drug interactions.¹ The Evaluation of protease inhibition for COVID-19 in standard-risk patients (EPIC-SR) trial recently reported nonsignificant findings in a press release.³In real-world evaluations of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir while the Omicron variant and its subvariants were predominating, a significant protective effect was seen in adults 65 years of age and older in Israel.⁴ A retrospective cohort study involving patients with COVID-19 who attended designated outpatient clinics in Hong Kong between Feb. 16 and Mar. 31, 2022, identified a reduced risk of hospital admission in adults when given nirmatrelvir–ritonavir, albeit attenuated compared with the EPIC-HR trial.⁵ Studies that have stratified participants by vaccination status identified similar reductions in relative risk in vaccinated cohorts but with smaller reductions in absolute risk because of the lower baseline risk of hospital admission or death from COVID-19.^4,6,7 Observational studies have risks of bias that include residual confounding and immortal time bias.⁸In Ontario, nirmatrelvir–ritonavir became widely available and funded for all patients in the community by April 2022, with clinical criteria set by the government limiting access only to patients who were older, had comorbidities or were undervaccinated.^9,10 The Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table provided clinical practice guidance to Ontario clinicians on the use of therapeutics for COVID-19 with stricter high-risk criteria based on patients who were most likely to benefit from the limited supplies of antiviral drug at the time.¹¹ A large proportion of patients who received nirmatrelvir–ritonavir in Ontario would have been excluded from the EPIC-HR trial population (e.g., those previously vaccinated or receiving concomitant medications with significant drug–drug interactions). Observational data evaluating use of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir can inform future policy and guidelines. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir–ritonavir on health outcomes, including hospital admission and death from COVID-19, while Omicron and its subvariants predominated.     

First Nations status and emergency department triage scores in Alberta: a retrospective cohort study

Background:Previous studies have found that race is associated with emergency department triage scores, raising concerns about potential health care inequity. As part of a project on quality of care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to understand the relation between First Nations status and triage scores.Methods:We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of health administrative data from April 2012 to March 2017 to evaluate acuity of triage scores, categorized as a binary outcome of higher or lower acuity score. We developed multivariable multilevel logistic mixed-effects regression models using the levels of emergency department visit, patient (for patients with multiple visits) and facility. We further evaluated the triage of visits related to 5 disease categories and 5 specific diagnoses to better compare triage outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations patients.Results:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of receiving higher acuity triage scores (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–0.94) compared with non–First Nations patients in adjusted models. First Nations patients had lower odds of acute triage for all 5 disease categories and for 3 of 5 diagnoses, including long bone fractures (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76–0.88), acute upper respiratory infection (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.98) and anxiety disorder (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60–0.74).Interpretation:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of higher acuity triage scores across a number of conditions and diagnoses. This may reflect systemic racism, stereotyping and potentially other factors that affected triage assessments.

Health outcomes are markedly worse for First Nations than non–First Nations people. Although this is largely because of inequities in the social determinants of health,^1–4 inequities in the provision of health care also exist.^5,6 Emergency departments serve as a point of accessible health care. Status First Nations patients make up 4.8% of unique patients and 9.4% of emergency visits in Alberta,⁷ and Canadian studies describe First Nations patients’ experiences with racism when seeking emergency care.^8,9Evaluating triage contributes empirically to understanding the health care of First Nations patients insofar as triage is a quantifiable, intermediate process by which systemic racism¹⁰ may influence patient outcomes. The Canadian Triage Acuity Scale¹¹ is a 5-level scale used to classify the severity of patient symptoms. Triage nurses use a brief assessment, medical history, and presenting signs and symptoms to assign each patient a triage score that determines the priority in which the patient should be seen by a provider. Therefore, accurate triage is important for patient health outcomes.¹² In practice, triage is a social interaction where local practice, biases, stereotypes and communication barriers come into play. Studies have found that women receive less acute triage scores than men,^13,14 and that racial minority^13,15–17 and Indigenous^18–20 patients receive less acute triage scores than white or non-Indigenous patients. Indeed, Indigenous patients in Canada have described a perception “of social triaging in the [emergency department], whereby decisions about who is seen first seemed to them [to be] based less on triaged clinical priorities but on the social positioning of the patient.”²¹ Differential triage scores for minority populations raise health equity concerns.As part of a larger mixed-methods project evaluating the quality of emergency care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to evaluate quantitative differences in emergency visit characteristics and outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations people in Alberta. Specifically, we aimed to estimate the relation between First Nations status and acuity of triage, and to evaluate whether predictors of acuity differ by First Nations status.     

Reasons for cannabis use during pregnancy and lactation: a qualitative study

Background:Cannabis use among pregnant and lactating people is increasing, despite clinical evidence showing that cannabis use may be associated with low birth weight and childhood developmental deficits. Our objective was to understand why pregnant and lactating people use cannabis and how these motivations change across perinatal stages.Methods:Using qualitative, constructivist grounded theory methodology, we conducted telephone and virtual interviews with 52 individuals from across Canada. We selected participants using maximum variation and theoretical sampling. They were eligible if they had been pregnant or lactating within the past year and had decided to continue, cease or decrease their cannabis use during the perinatal period.Results:We identified 3 categories of reasons that people use cannabis during pregnancy and lactation: sensation-seeking for fun and enjoyment; symptom management of chronic conditions and conditions related to pregnancy; and coping with the unpleasant, but nonpathologized, experiences of life. Before pregnancy, participants endorsed reasons for using cannabis in these 3 categories in similar proportions, with many offering multiple reasons for use. During pregnancy, reasons for use shifted primarily to symptom management. During lactation, reasons returned to resemble those expressed before pregnancy.Interpretation:In this study, we showed that pregnant and lactating people use cannabis for many reasons, particularly for symptom management. Reasons for cannabis use changed across reproductive stages. The dynamic nature of the reasons for use across stages speaks to participant perception of benefits and risks, and perhaps a desire to cast cannabis use during pregnancy as therapeutic because of perceived stigma.

Cannabis use by pregnant and lactating people is increasing, though it is difficult to establish the prevalence of cannabis use in pregnancy. Reported prevalence varies from 2% to 36%, depending on the methodology used to detect use, the population studied and the definition of use.^1–12 Pregnant people have reported using cannabis to manage pregnancy-related conditions (e.g., nausea, weight gain, sleep difficulty)^13–19 and pre-existing conditions (e.g., mental health, insomnia, chronic pain),^13,14,18 as well as to improve mood, mental, physical and spiritual well-being,^16,18 provide pleasure and manage stress.^13–16 Recent systematic reviews have not found empirical data on reasons for cannabis use during lactation.^20,21Evidence is still emerging about clinical outcomes related to cannabis use during pregnancy and lactation, and well-controlled studies are lacking.^22–24 The available evidence is limited by reliance on self-reported data about dose, composition and timing of exposure, the changing nature of tetrahydrocannabinol levels in cannabis over time, and a lack of studies that control for known confounders such as polysubstance and tobacco use.^25–31 The available evidence does suggest that cannabis use during pregnancy may be associated with complications such as low birth weight, childhood neurodevelopmental outcomes and preterm birth.^{22–24,32,33} Very few studies have analyzed the outcomes associated with cannabis exposure through breastmilk, with 1 study suggesting decreased infant motor development and another showing no effects on developmental outcomes.^34–36 Given the potential harms identified, and in the absence of high-quality evidence available to guide practice, most clinical guidelines recommend abstinence from cannabis during pregnancy and lactation.^37–39People who perceive benefits from cannabis may wish to or may be motivated to continue using it through pregnancy and lactation, however. Counselling that explores the reasons patients are considering cannabis use and suggests related alternatives or harm reduction strategies has been identified as a helpful strategy to minimize potential harm.^13,40,41,42 Such an approach requires that clinicians understand the motivations to use cannabis before pregnancy, during pregnancy and during lactation. We sought to explore why people use cannabis during pregnancy and lactation.     

Comparison of black–white disparities in preterm birth between Canada and the United States

Background:

A higher risk of preterm birth among black women than among white women is well established in the United States. We compared differences in preterm birth between non-Hispanic black and white women in Canada and the US, hypothesizing that disparities would be less extreme in Canada given the different historical experiences of black populations and Canada’s universal health care system.

Methods:

Using data on singleton live births in Canada and the US for 2004–2006, we estimated crude and adjusted risk ratios and risk differences in preterm birth (< 37 wk) and very preterm birth (< 32 wk) among non-Hispanic black versus non-Hispanic white women in each country. Adjusted models for the US were standardized to the covariate distribution of the Canadian cohort.

Results:

In Canada, 8.9% and 5.9% of infants born to black and white mothers, respectively, were preterm; the corresponding figures in the US were 12.7% and 8.0%. Crude risk ratios for preterm birth among black women relative to white women were 1.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.32 to 1.66) in Canada and 1.57 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.58) in the US (p value for heterogeneity [p_H] = 0.3). The crude risk differences for preterm birth were 2.94 (95% CI 1.91 to 3.96) in Canada and 4.63 (95% CI 4.56 to 4.70) in the US (p_H = 0.003). Adjusted risk ratios for preterm birth (p_H = 0.1) were slightly higher in Canada than in the US, whereas adjusted risk differences were similar in both countries. Similar patterns were observed for racial disparities in very preterm birth.

Interpretation:

Relative disparities in preterm birth and very preterm birth between non-Hispanic black and white women were similar in magnitude in Canada and the US. Absolute disparities were smaller in Canada, which reflects a lower overall risk of preterm birth in Canada than in the US in both black and white populations.In the United States, a higher risk of preterm birth among black women than among white women is well established.^1–3 This racial disparity is of great concern because preterm birth is a leading cause of perinatal mortality and is predictive of developmental problems and adverse health outcomes later in life.⁴ The underlying causes of the racial disparity in preterm birth in the US are not well understood, although research has suggested contributing roles for a wide range of factors, including socioeconomic disadvantage,⁵ poor neighbourhood conditions (e.g., poverty, crime),^5,6 lack of access to health care,⁷ psychosocial stress,⁸ racial discrimination⁹ and adverse health behaviours.¹⁰Rates of preterm birth have consistently been lower in Canada than in the US.^11,12 However, in contrast to the US, little is known about differences in rates by race or ethnicity in Canada. There is evidence that African-born and Caribbean-born women in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have higher rates of preterm birth than Canadian-born women.^13–15 Although the magnitude of these differences is smaller than the disparity in preterm births between black and white women in the US,¹⁶ foreign-born black women in the US have been found to be at lower risk of preterm birth than US-born black women.^17,18In both Canada and the US, socioeconomic conditions at both individual and neighbourhood levels are important predictors of preterm birth.^19–21 Although the income gap between black and white people is markedly smaller in Canada than in the US,²² black populations in both countries have lower education levels, higher unemployment rates and a greater likelihood of living in low-quality neighbourhoods compared with white populations.²³ Canada and the US share similar social and economic influences, yet the historical experiences of black populations and the social welfare systems (e.g., universal health care) are quite different in the 2 countries. Black people constitute about 13% of the total US population, but only about 3% of the Canadian population.^24,25 The overwhelming majority of Canada’s black population are immigrants who entered the country after 1960 and their descendants, whereas more than 85% of black Americans can trace their ancestry 3 or more generations in the US, with most being descendants of slaves.²²The objectives of our study are twofold. First, using data from a new cohort linking birth registrations with information from the 2006 Canadian long-form census, we present Canada-wide estimates of differences in preterm birth rates between black and white populations. Second, we use comparable methodology to compare racial differences in preterm birth rates between Canada and the US. Given different historical experiences of black populations in the 2 countries, as well as Canada’s commitment to universal health care and its general perception as a more egalitarian society than the US,²² we hypothesized that we would observe smaller racial disparities in the rates in Canada than in the US.     

Health care experiences of people with dementia and their caregivers: a meta-ethnographic analysis of qualitative studies

Background:

Understanding the health care experience of people with dementia and their caregivers is becoming increasingly important given the growing number of affected individuals. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies that examined aspects of the health care experience of people with dementia and their caregivers to better understand ways to improve care for this population.

Methods:

We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL to identify relevant articles. We extracted key study characteristics and methods from the included studies. We also extracted direct quotes from the primary studies, along with the interpretations provided by authors of the studies. We used meta-ethnography to synthesize the extracted information into an overall framework. We evaluated the quality of the primary studies using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.

Results:

In total, 46 studies met our inclusion criteria; these involved 1866 people with dementia and their caregivers. We identified 5 major themes: seeking a diagnosis; accessing supports and services; addressing information needs; disease management; and communication and attitudes of health care providers. We conceptualized the health care experience as progressing through phases of seeking understanding and information, identifying the problem, role transitions following diagnosis and living with change.

Interpretation:

The health care experience of people with dementia and their caregivers is a complex and dynamic process, which could be improved for many people. Understanding these experiences provides insight into potential gaps in existing health services. Modifying existing services or implementing new models of care to address these gaps may lead to improved outcomes for people with dementia and their caregivers.The global prevalence of Alzheimer disease and related dementias is estimated to be 36 million people and is expected to double in the next 20 years.¹ Several recent strategies for providing care to patients with dementia have highlighted the importance of coordinated health care services for this growing population.^2–5 Gaps in the quality of care for people with dementia have been identified,^6–8 and improving their quality of care and health care experience has been identified as a priority area.^2–5Incorporating the health care experience of patients and caregivers in health service planning is important to ensure that their needs are met and that person-centred care is provided.⁹ The health care experience of people with dementia and their caregivers provides valuable information about preferences for services and service delivery.¹⁰ Matching available services to patient treatment preferences leads to improved patient outcomes^11,12 and satisfaction without increasing costs.¹³ Qualitative research is ideally suited to exploring the experiences and perspectives of patients and caregivers and has been used to examine these experiences for other conditions.¹⁴ We performed a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies exploring the health care experience of people with dementia and their caregivers in primary care settings, and we propose a conceptual framework for understanding and improving these health care experiences.     

Outcomes in patients with and without disability admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study

Background:Disability-related considerations have largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, despite evidence that people with disabilities are at elevated risk for acquiring COVID-19. We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with a disability compared with patients without a disability.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study that included adults with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospital and discharged between Jan. 1, 2020, and Nov. 30, 2020, at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared in-hospital death, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmission among patients with and without a physical disability, hearing or vision impairment, traumatic brain injury, or intellectual or developmental disability, overall and stratified by age (≤ 64 and ≥ 65 yr) using multivariable regression, controlling for sex, residence in a long-term care facility and comorbidity.Results:Among 1279 admissions to hospital for COVID-19, 22.3% had a disability. We found that patients with a disability were more likely to die than those without a disability (28.1% v. 17.6%), had longer hospital stays (median 13.9 v. 7.8 d) and more readmissions (17.6% v. 7.9%), but had lower ICU admission rates (22.5% v. 28.3%). After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences between those with and without disabilities for in-hospital death or admission to ICU. After adjustment, patients with a disability had longer hospital stays (rate ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.56) and greater risk of readmission (relative risk 1.77, 95% CI 1.14–2.75). In age-stratified analyses, we observed longer hospital stays among patients with a disability than in those without, in both younger and older subgroups; readmission risk was driven by younger patients with a disability.Interpretation:Patients with a disability who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 had longer stays and elevated readmission risk than those without disabilities. Disability-related needs should be addressed to support these patients in hospital and after discharge.

A successful public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic requires accurate and timely identification of, and support for, high-risk groups. There is increasing recognition that marginalized groups, including congregate care residents, racial and ethnic minorities, and people experiencing poverty, have elevated incidence of COVID-19.^1,2 Older age and comorbidities such as diabetes are also risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes.^3,4 One potential high-risk group that has received relatively little attention is people with disabilities.The World Health Organization estimates there are 1 billion people with disabilities globally.⁵ In North America, the prevalence of disability is 20%, with one-third of people older than 65 years having a disability.⁶ Disabilities include physical disabilities, hearing and vision impairments, traumatic brain injury and intellectual or developmental disabilities.^5,6 Although activity limitations experienced by people with disabilities are heterogeneous,^5,6 people with disabilities share high rates of risk factors for acquiring COVID-19, including poverty, residence in congregate care and being members of racialized communities.^7–9 People with disabilities may be more reliant on close contact with others to meet their daily needs, and some people with disabilities, especially intellectual developmental disabilities, may have difficulty following public health rules. Once they acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with disabilities may be at risk for severe outcomes because they have elevated rates of comorbidities.¹⁰ Some disabilities (e.g., spinal cord injuries and neurologic disabilities) result in physiologic changes that increase vulnerability to respiratory diseases and may mask symptoms of acute respiratory disease, which may delay diagnosis.^11–13 There have also been reports of barriers to high-quality hospital care for patients with disabilities who have COVID-19, including communication issues caused by the use of masks and restricted access to support persons.^14–17Some studies have suggested that patients with disabilities and COVID-19 are at elevated risk for severe disease and death, with most evaluating intellectual or developmental disability.^13,18–26 Yet, consideration of disability-related needs has largely been absent from the COVID-19 response, with vaccine eligibility driven primarily by age and medical comorbidity, limited accommodations made for patients with disabilities who are in hospital, and disability data often not being captured in surveillance programs.^14–17 To inform equitable pandemic supports, there is a need for data on patients with a broad range of disabilities who have COVID-19. We sought to evaluate standard clinical outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19²⁷ (i.e., in-hospital death, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, hospital length of stay and unplanned 30-d readmission) for patients with and without a disability, overall and stratified by age. We hypothesized that patients with a disability would have worse outcomes because of a greater prevalence of comorbidities,¹⁰ physiologic characteristics that increase morbidity risk^11–13 and barriers to high-quality hospital care.^14–17     

Suicidality among sexual minority and transgender adolescents: a nationally representative population-based study of youth in Canada

Background:Very little research has described risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt among transgender youth using high-quality, nationally representative data. We aimed to assess risk of suicidality among transgender and sexual minority adolescents in Canada.Methods:We analyzed a subsample of adolescents aged 15–17 years from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth, a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey. We defined participants’ transgender identity (self-reported gender different from sex assigned at birth) and sexual minority status (self-reported attraction to people of the same gender) as exposures, and their self-reported previous-year suicidal ideation and lifetime suicide attempt as outcomes.Results:We included 6800 adolescents aged 15–17 years, including 1130 (16.5%) who indicated some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction and 50 (0.6%) who reported a transgender identity. Compared with cisgender, heterosexual adolescents, transgender adolescents showed 5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.63 to 6.75; 58% v. 10%) and 7.6 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 4.76 to 12.10; 40% v. 5%). Among cisgender adolescents, girls attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of previous-year suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.59 to 5.08) and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide (95% CI 1.81 to 6.06), compared with their heterosexual peers. Adolescents attracted to multiple genders had 2.5 times the risk of suicidal ideation (95% CI 2.12 to 2.98) and 2.8 times the risk of suicide attempt (95% CI 2.18 to 3.68). Youth questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime (95% CI 1.23 to 3.36).Interpretation:We observed that transgender and sexual minority adolescents were at increased risk of suicidal ideation and attempt compared with their cisgender and heterosexual peers. These findings highlight the need for inclusive prevention approaches to address suicidality among Canada’s diverse youth population.

Suicide is the second leading cause of death among adolescents and young adults aged 15–24 years in Canada.^1,2 Suicidal ideation and suicide attempt are common among adolescents³ and are risk factors for death by suicide.⁴ Sexual minority youth (i.e., youth who are attracted to the same gender or multiple genders, or who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or queer)⁵ are known to be at increased risk of poor mental health,^6–8 including suicidal ideation and attempt.^5–10 Over the previous 2 decades, stigma around identifying as a sexual minority has reduced;⁷ however, the risk of poor mental health and of suicidality remains high among sexual minority youth.^7,11 This population is still more likely to experience bullying and peer victimization,^9,12,13 which is associated with suicidality among sexual minority adolescents.⁵Transgender youth are those whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.¹⁴ Among other terms, gender-nonconforming, nonbinary, genderqueer and genderfluid are used to describe the gender identity of a subset of young people who identify outside the gender binary (i.e., as neither male nor female) or who experience fluidity between genders.⁹ Suicidality among transgender and gender-nonconforming adolescents is not as well studied. In a Canadian survey of transgender and gender-nonconforming youth aged 14–25 years, 64% of participants reported that they had seriously considered suicide in the previous 12 months.¹⁵ Transgender and gender-nonconforming youth seem to have a higher probability of many risk factors for suicidality, including peer victimization,^8,16 family dysfunction^7,17 and barriers to accessing mental health care.¹⁸ However, the epidemiology of suicidality among transgender and gender-nonconforming youth remains understudied in population-based samples; most research on the mental health of transgender youth comes from small community samples of help-seeking youth or targeted surveys of transgender adolescents.^5,19,20 Two population-based studies from California²¹ and New Zealand²² suggested that transgender youth are at increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. However, only the New Zealand study²² used the gold-standard measure of gender identity, contrasting adolescents’ sex assigned at birth with their self-identified gender.²³Further epidemiological research employing large, representative samples and adequate measures of gender identity is needed to understand the burden of suicidality among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth. We sought to build on existing evidence to assess risk of suicidal ideation and attempt among transgender and sexual minority adolescents in Canada, as compared with their cisgender and heterosexual peers, as well as to explore the relation between suicidality and experience of bullying.     

Preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND:Conflicting reports have emerged for rates of preterm births and stillbirths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most of these reports did not account for natural variation in these rates. We aimed to evaluate variations in preterm birth and stillbirth rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked population health administrative databases of pregnant people giving birth in any hospital in Ontario between July 2002 and December 2020. We calculated preterm birth and stillbirth rates. We assessed preterm birth at 22–28, 29–32 and 33–36 weeks’ gestation, and stillbirths at term and preterm gestation. We used Laney control P′ charts for the 18-year study period (6-mo observation periods) and interrupted time-series analyses for monthly rates for the most recent 4 years.RESULTS:We evaluated 2 465 387 pregnancies, including 13 781 that resulted in stillbirth. The mean preterm birth rate for our cohort was 7.96% (range 7.32%–8.59%). From January to December 2020, we determined that the preterm birth rate in Ontario was 7.87%, with no special cause variation. The mean stillbirth rate for the cohort was 0.56% (range 0.48%–0.70%). From January to December 2020, the stillbirth rate was 0.53%, with no special cause variation. We did not find any special cause variation for preterm birth or stillbirth subgroups. We found no changes in slope or gap between prepandemic and pandemic periods using interrupted time-series analyses.INTERPRETATION:In Ontario, Canada, we found no special cause variation (unusual change) in preterm birth or stillbirth rates, overall or by subgroups, during the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the previous 17.5 years.

Preterm birth (birth before 37 weeks’ gestation) is a leading cause of mortality and morbidities in the neonatal period,¹ childhood and adulthood.² Stillbirth has devastating consequences for families.³ The causes of both preterm birth and stillbirth are multifactorial. During the pandemic, reports described reductions in preterm birth rates in Denmark,⁴ the Netherlands,⁵ Ireland⁶ and the United States.⁷ At the same time, increases in stillbirth rates were reported from the United Kingdom,⁸ Italy,⁹ Nepal¹⁰ and India,¹¹ with or without changes in rates of preterm births. Meta-analyses have emerged with differing conclusions.^12,13 Some speculated reasons for reductions in preterm births included reductions in physical activity during pregnancy, reduced stress related to work–life balance, less exposure to infection, fewer medical interventions, reduced travel and pollution,¹⁴ and improved hygiene and rest. Proposed reasons for increases in preterm birth rates include higher stress due to worry about the pandemic, employment or financial challenges, home schooling and reduced maternity services.¹⁵ Less stringent fetal surveillance from reduced attendance at medical appointments for fear of infection, cancellation of face-to-face appointments and reduced staffing for maternity services are possible reasons for increased rates of stillbirths. Thus, it is important to evaluate preterm births and stillbirths simultaneously to understand the true impact.¹⁶Some previous reports compared preterm birth and stillbirth rates during the pandemic to similar time periods in the past few years. However, within a jurisdiction, these rates are known to fluctuate between epochs¹⁷ and, thus, it is preferable to evaluate rates over longer periods to establish whether observed variations are usual (common cause variation) or unusual (special cause variation). Our objective was to evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected preterm birth or stillbirth rates in Ontario by comparing rates for the early COVID-19 pandemic time period with rates from the previous 17.5 years to identify patterns of variation.     

Effectiveness of training family physicians to deliver a brief intervention to address excessive substance use among young patients: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background:

Brief interventions delivered by family physicians to address excessive alcohol use among adult patients are effective. We conducted a study to determine whether such an intervention would be similarly effective in reducing binge drinking and excessive cannabis use among young people.

Methods:

We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial involving 33 family physicians in Switzerland. Physicians in the intervention group received training in delivering a brief intervention to young people during the consultation in addition to usual care. Physicians in the control group delivered usual care only. Consecutive patients aged 15–24 years were recruited from each practice and, before the consultation, completed a confidential questionnaire about their general health and substance use. Patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months after the consultation. The primary outcome measure was self-reported excessive substance use (≥ 1 episode of binge drinking, or ≥ 1 joint of cannabis per week, or both) in the past 30 days.

Results:

Of the 33 participating physicians, 17 were randomly allocated to the intervention group and 16 to the control group. Of the 594 participating patients, 279 (47.0%) identified themselves as binge drinkers or excessive cannabis users, or both, at baseline. Excessive substance use did not differ significantly between patients whose physicians were in the intervention group and those whose physicians were in the control group at any of the follow-up points (odds ratio [OR] and 95% confidence interval [CI] at 3 months: 0.9 [0.6–1.4]; at 6 mo: 1.0 [0.6–1.6]; and at 12 mo: 1.1 [0.7–1.8]). The differences between groups were also nonsignificant after we re stricted the analysis to patients who reported excessive substance use at baseline (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9–2.8, at 3 mo; OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9–3.2, at 6 mo; and OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9–4.0, at 12 mo).

Interpretation:

Training family physicians to use a brief intervention to address excessive substance use among young people was not effective in reducing binge drinking and excessive cannabis use in this patient population. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, no. ACTRN12608000432314.Most health-compromising behaviours begin in adolescence.¹ Interventions to address these behaviours early are likely to bring long-lasting benefits.² Harmful use of alcohol is a leading factor associated with premature death and disability worldwide, with a disproportionally high impact on young people (aged 10–24 yr).^3,4 Similarly, early cannabis use can have adverse consequences that extend into adulthood.^5–8In adolescence and early adulthood, binge drinking on at least a monthly basis is associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes later in life.^9–12 Although any cannabis use is potentially harmful, weekly use represents a threshold in adolescence related to an increased risk of cannabis (and tobacco) dependence in adulthood.¹³ Binge drinking affects 30%–50% and excessive cannabis use about 10% of the adolescent and young adult population in Europe and the United States.^10,14,15Reducing substance-related harm involves multisectoral approaches, including promotion of healthy child and adolescent development, regulatory policies and early treatment interventions.¹⁶ Family physicians can add to the public health messages by personalizing their content within brief interventions.^17,18 There is evidence that brief interventions can encourage young people to reduce substance use, yet most studies have been conducted in community settings (mainly educational), emergency services or specialized addiction clinics.^1,16 Studies aimed at adult populations have shown favourable effects of brief alcohol interventions, and to some extent brief cannabis interventions, in primary care.^19–22 These interventions have been recommended for adolescent populations.^4,5,16 Yet young people have different modes of substance use and communication styles that may limit the extent to which evidence from adult studies can apply to them.Recently, a systematic review of brief interventions to reduce alcohol use in adolescents identified only 1 randomized controlled trial in primary care.²³ The tested intervention, not provided by family physicians but involving audio self-assessment, was ineffective in reducing alcohol use in exposed adolescents.²⁴ Sanci and colleagues showed that training family physicians to address health-risk behaviours among adolescents was effective in improving provider performance, but the extent to which this translates into improved outcomes remains unknown.^25,26 Two nonrandomized studies suggested screening for substance use and brief advice by family physicians could favour reduced alcohol and cannabis use among adolescents,^27,28 but evidence from randomized trials is lacking.²⁹We conducted the PRISM-Ado (Primary care Intervention Addressing Substance Misuse in Adolescents) trial, a cluster randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of training family physicians to deliver a brief intervention to address binge drinking and excessive cannabis use among young people.     

Regional collaborative home-based palliative care and health care outcomes among adults with heart failure

BackgroundInnovative models of collaborative palliative care are urgently needed to meet gaps in end-of-life care among people with heart failure. We sought to determine whether regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that involves cardiologists, primary care providers and palliative care specialists, and that uses shared decision-making to promote goal- and need-concordant care for patients with heart failure, was associated with a greater likelihood of patients dying at home than in hospital.MethodsWe conducted a population-based matched cohort study of adults who died with chronic heart failure across 2 large health regions in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was location of death. Secondary outcomes included rates of health care use, including unplanned visits to the emergency department, hospital admissions, hospital lengths of stay, admissions to the intensive care unit, number of visits with primary care physicians or cardiologists, number of home visits by palliative care physicians or nurse practitioners, and number of days spent at home.ResultsPatients who received regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care (n = 245) had a 48% lower associated risk of dying in hospital (relative risk 52%, 95% confidence interval 44%–66%) compared with the matched cohort (n = 1172) who received usual care, with 101 (41.2%) and 917 (78.2%) patients, respectively, dying in hospital (number needed to treat = 3). Additional associated benefits of the collaborative approach included higher rates of clinician home visits, longer time to first hospital admission, shorter hospital stays and more days spent at home.InterpretationAdoption of a model of regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that uses shared decision-making may improve end-of-life outcomes for people with chronic heart failure.

Innovative models of collaborative, interdisciplinary palliative care that use shared decision-making to promote goal- and need-concordant care are urgently needed to meet rising demand among people with heart failure.^1,2 Between 2010 and 2015, 75% of people with heart failure in Ontario died in hospital, despite 70% of people preferring an out-of-hospital death and 90% preferring end-of-life health care delivery at home.^3–5 Most people also prioritize improvements in quality of life at the end of life over extension of life.⁶ Admission to hospital near the end of life is often perceived as undesirable and may result in the provision of unwanted care, whereas home visits near the end of life tend to focus on comfort and are associated with higher rates of death at home.^4,5,7,8 These preferences are recognized at a system level, such that avoidance of unwanted health care and at-home death are considered quality indicators for end-of-life care.^9–11 However, delivering high-quality care for people with heart failure who are near the end of their life is challenging because of their unpredictable illness course and limited capacity of specialist palliative care.^4,12–14Many studies, including a recent meta-analysis, have shown that home-based palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and symptoms, reduced health care use and a higher likelihood of a home death among people with heart failure. ^{4,8,12,13,15,16} However, only 32% of people with heart failure received home-based palliative care near the end of life in Ontario.^4,8 Several randomized controlled trials explored the effects of collaborative care models for people with heart failure; ^12–16 the results were mixed regarding quality of life, symptoms and health care use.^13,17–21 Some trials reported that palliative care resulted in improvements in quality of life and reductions in burdensome symptoms and hospital admissions, whereas others reported no change in these outcomes.¹³ Most studies were single centre and none evaluated a model of regional organization and in-person home visits as a scalable approach.Given the need to address end-of-life care gaps for people with heart failure, we sought to determine whether regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care (CHPC) — involving cardiology, primary care and palliative care — was associated with increased rates of out-of-hospital death among adults who died with heart failure.