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.     

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     

Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Induction of labour is common, and cesarean delivery is regarded as its major complication. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether the risk of cesarean delivery is higher or lower following labour induction compared with expectant management.

Methods:

We searched 6 electronic databases for relevant articles published through April 2012 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which labour induction was compared with placebo or expectant management among women with a viable singleton pregnancy. We assessed risk of bias and obtained data on rates of cesarean delivery. We used regression analysis techniques to explore the effect of patient characteristics, induction methods and study quality on risk of cesarean delivery.

Results:

We identified 157 eligible RCTs (n = 31 085). Overall, the risk of cesarean delivery was 12% lower with labour induction than with expectant management (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.93; I² = 0%). The effect was significant in term and post-term gestations but not in preterm gestations. Meta-regression analysis showed that initial cervical score, indication for induction and method of induction did not alter the main result. There was a reduced risk of fetal death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25–0.99; I² = 0%) and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.94), and no impact on maternal death (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.10–9.57; I² = 0%) with labour induction.

Interpretation:

The risk of cesarean delivery was lower among women whose labour was induced than among those managed expectantly in term and post-term gestations. There were benefits for the fetus and no increased risk of maternal death.Labour is induced in 1 of 5 births^1,2 for maternal reasons (e.g., preeclampsia, cardiac or renal disease), fetal reasons (e.g., intrauterine growth restriction) or a combination (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes, preterm rupture of the membranes or post-term pregnancy).³ Induction of labour artificially ripens the cervix and initiates uterine contractions in women who are not already in labour, leading to progressive dilation of the cervix to achieve vaginal birth of a baby at any gestation beyond the legal definition of fetal viability.⁴Although induction of labour has been criticized for an associated increased risk of cesarean delivery, recent studies have shown that there are fewer cesarean deliveries with induction than without it. However, the findings have not had much impact on practice, in part because the systematic reviews^5–8 investigated subsets of induction and included few randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and because observational data in a cohort study⁹ had risk of confounding. Consumer organizations,¹⁰ guidelines¹¹ and textbooks^12,13 have given contradictory information about cesarean risk, which can lead to confusion over decision-making, particularly given a desire to support normal birth in the face of increasing cesarean rates worldwide. Cesarean delivery carries multiple risks to mother and baby, including maternal death,¹⁴ infection and postnatal depression,^15,16 and respiratory distress syndrome in neonates.¹⁴ Accurate, precise information about cesarean risk is therefore needed for decision-making regarding labour induction.We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate the risk of cesarean delivery associated with labour induction compared with expectant management. We also explored the effects of clinical characteristics and study quality on the overall result using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.     

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.     

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.     

Gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants: profiles by mode of delivery and infant diet at 4 months

Background:

The gut microbiota is essential to human health throughout life, yet the acquisition and development of this microbial community during infancy remains poorly understood. Meanwhile, there is increasing concern over rising rates of cesarean delivery and insufficient exclusive breastfeeding of infants in developed countries. In this article, we characterize the gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants and describe the influence of cesarean delivery and formula feeding.

Methods:

We included a subset of 24 term infants from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) birth cohort. Mode of delivery was obtained from medical records, and mothers were asked to report on infant diet and medication use. Fecal samples were collected at 4 months of age, and we characterized the microbiota composition using high-throughput DNA sequencing.

Results:

We observed high variability in the profiles of fecal microbiota among the infants. The profiles were generally dominated by Actinobacteria (mainly the genus Bifidobacterium) and Firmicutes (with diverse representation from numerous genera). Compared with breastfed infants, formula-fed infants had increased richness of species, with overrepresentation of Clostridium difficile. Escherichia–Shigella and Bacteroides species were underrepresented in infants born by cesarean delivery. Infants born by elective cesarean delivery had particularly low bacterial richness and diversity.

Interpretation:

These findings advance our understanding of the gut microbiota in healthy infants. They also provide new evidence for the effects of delivery mode and infant diet as determinants of this essential microbial community in early life.The human body harbours trillions of microbes, known collectively as the “human microbiome.” By far the highest density of commensal bacteria is found in the digestive tract, where resident microbes outnumber host cells by at least 10 to 1. Gut bacteria play a fundamental role in human health by promoting intestinal homeostasis, stimulating development of the immune system, providing protection against pathogens, and contributing to the processing of nutrients and harvesting of energy.^1,2 The disruption of the gut microbiota has been linked to an increasing number of diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, necrotizing enterocolitis, diabetes, obesity, cancer, allergies and asthma.¹ Despite this evidence and a growing appreciation for the integral role of the gut microbiota in lifelong health, relatively little is known about the acquisition and development of this complex microbial community during infancy.³Two of the best-studied determinants of the gut microbiota during infancy are mode of delivery and exposure to breast milk.^4,5 Cesarean delivery perturbs normal colonization of the infant gut by preventing exposure to maternal microbes, whereas breastfeeding promotes a “healthy” gut microbiota by providing selective metabolic substrates for beneficial bacteria.^3,5 Despite recommendations from the World Health Organization,⁶ the rate of cesarean delivery has continued to rise in developed countries and rates of breastfeeding decrease substantially within the first few months of life.^7,8 In Canada, more than 1 in 4 newborns are born by cesarean delivery, and less than 15% of infants are exclusively breastfed for the recommended duration of 6 months.^9,10 In some parts of the world, elective cesarean deliveries are performed by maternal request, often because of apprehension about pain during childbirth, and sometimes for patient–physician convenience.¹¹The potential long-term consequences of decisions regarding mode of delivery and infant diet are not to be underestimated. Infants born by cesarean delivery are at increased risk of asthma, obesity and type 1 diabetes,¹² whereas breastfeeding is variably protective against these and other disorders.¹³ These long-term health consequences may be partially attributable to disruption of the gut microbiota.^12,14Historically, the gut microbiota has been studied with the use of culture-based methodologies to examine individual organisms. However, up to 80% of intestinal microbes cannot be grown in culture.^3,15 New technology using culture-independent DNA sequencing enables comprehensive detection of intestinal microbes and permits simultaneous characterization of entire microbial communities. Multinational consortia have been established to characterize the “normal” adult microbiome using these exciting new methods;¹⁶ however, these methods have been underused in infant studies. Because early colonization may have long-lasting effects on health, infant studies are vital.^3,4 Among the few studies of infant gut microbiota using DNA sequencing, most were conducted in restricted populations, such as infants delivered vaginally,¹⁷ infants born by cesarean delivery who were formula-fed¹⁸ or preterm infants with necrotizing enterocolitis.¹⁹Thus, the gut microbiota is essential to human health, yet the acquisition and development of this microbial community during infancy remains poorly understood.³ In the current study, we address this gap in knowledge using new sequencing technology and detailed exposure assessments²⁰ of healthy Canadian infants selected from a national birth cohort to provide representative, comprehensive profiles of gut microbiota according to mode of delivery and infant diet.     

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.     

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     

Perinatal outcomes of midwife-led care,stratified by medical risk: a retrospective cohort study from British Columbia (2008–2018)

Background:Anecdotal evidence suggests that the profile of midwifery clients in British Columbia has changed over the past 20 years and that midwives are increasingly caring for clients with moderate to high medical risk. We sought to compare perinatal outcomes with a registered midwife as the most responsible provider (MRP) versus outcomes among clients with physicians as their MRP across medical risk strata.Methods:This retrospective cohort study (2008–2018) used data from the BC Perinatal Data Registry. We included all births that had a family physician, obstetrician or midwife listed as the MRP (n = 425 056) and stratified the analysis by pregnancy risk status (low, moderate or high) according to an adapted perinatal risk scoring system. We estimated differences in outcomes between MRP groups by calculating adjusted absolute and relative risks.Results:The adjusted absolute and relative risks of adverse neonatal outcomes were consistently lower among those who chose midwifery care across medical risk strata, compared with clients who had a physician as MRP. Midwifery clients experienced higher rates of spontaneous vaginal births, vaginal births after cesarean delivery and breastfeeding initiation, and lower rates of cesarean deliveries and instrumental births, with no increase in adverse neonatal outcomes. We observed an increased risk of oxytocin induction among high-risk birthers with a midwife versus an obstetrician as MRP.Interpretation:Our findings suggest that compared with other providers in BC, midwives provide safe primary care for clients with varied levels of medical risk. Future research might examine how different practice and remuneration models affect clinical outcomes, client and provider experiences, and costs to the health care system.

In British Columbia, registered midwives are autonomous, primary health care providers, regulated and integrated into the publicly funded health care system. Midwives typically work in small-team continuity-of-care models, providing medical care during pregnancy, birth and up to 3 months postpartum in the community and in hospitals. Midwives hold hospital privileges and consult with physician colleagues as medically indicated.Since the regulation of midwifery in BC in 1998, the number of pregnant people who are attended by midwives during birth has steadily increased, from 4.8% in 2004/05¹ to 15.6% in 2019/20.² In 2018/19, 1 in 4 childbearing people in BC (25.4%) had a midwife involved in their care at some point during their pregnancy, birth or postpartum period.²Several studies have examined the safety of midwifery care in BC after regulation. Janssen and colleagues analyzed the outcomes of low-risk clients from 2000 to 2004, providing important evidence for the safety of midwife-attended planned home births in the early years after regulation.³ Other researchers have described good perinatal outcomes for subsets of midwifery clients in BC, including those residing in rural areas⁴ and those planning vaginal births after cesarean (VBAC) at home.⁵ However, these studies focused on subsamples of childbearing people or did not use recent data.The benefits of midwife-led care for clients with more complex needs are beginning to emerge in BC. Using BC perinatal data, McRae and colleagues^6,7 demonstrated that those affected by low socioeconomic position, substance use and mental illness had lower odds of small-for-gestational-age babies, pretermbirth and low-birth-weight babies when they were cared for by midwives antenatally rather than by physicians.This analysis is part of a larger mixed-methods study that aimed to better understand the changing profile of midwifery clients in BC and the implications this has for education, research and practice. The goal of the current analysis is to present complete and recent data from all births in BC that had a midwife, family physician or obstetrician listed as the most responsible provider (MRP). Specifically, we sought to document neonatal and maternal outcomes of childbearing people who had a mid-wife as their MRP compared with those who had a physician as the MRP, with similar medical risk profiles.     

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.     

Diversity among health care leaders in Canada: a cross-sectional study of perceived gender and race

Background:Diverse health care leadership teams may improve health care experiences and outcomes for patients. We sought to explore the race and gender of hospital and health ministry executives in Canada and compare their diversity with that of the populations they serve.Methods:This cross-sectional study included leaders of Canada’s largest hospitals and all provincial and territorial health ministries. We included individuals listed on institutional websites as part of the leadership team if a name and photo were available. Six reviewers coded and analyzed the perceived race and gender of leaders, in duplicate. We compared the proportion of racialized health care leaders with the race demographics of the general population from the 2016 Canadian Census.Results:We included 3056 leaders from 135 institutions, with reviewer concordance on gender for 3022 leaders and on race for 2946 leaders. Reviewers perceived 37 (47.4%) of 78 health ministry leaders as women, and fewer than 5 (< 7%) of 80 as racialized. In Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, provinces with a centralized hospital executive team, reviewers coded 36 (50.0%) of 72 leaders as women and 5 (7.1%) of 70 as racialized. In British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, provinces with hospital leadership by region, reviewers perceived 120 (56.1%) of 214 leaders as women and 24 (11.5%) of 209 as racialized. In Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, where leadership teams exist at each hospital, reviewers perceived 1326 (49.9%) of 2658 leaders as women and 243 (9.2%) of 2633 as racialized. We calculated the representation gap between racialized executives and the racialized population as 14.5% for British Columbia, 27.5% for Manitoba, 20.7% for Ontario, 12.4% for Quebec, 7.6% for New Brunswick, 7.3% for Prince Edward Island and 11.6% for Newfoundland and Labrador.Interpretation:In a study of more than 3000 health care leaders in Canada, gender parity was present, but racialized executives were substantially under-represented. This work should prompt health care institutions to increase racial diversity in leadership.

Race and gender-based disparities in health care leadership^1–4 may negatively affect the health of marginalized patients.^5,6 Diverse leadership is an integral step in establishing equitable health care institutions that serve the needs of all community members.⁷ Many barriers prevent racialized people, women and gender nonbinary individuals from attaining leadership positions, including reduced access to networking opportunities, ^8–10 discrimination from patients and colleagues^2,11–13 and an institutional culture that views white, male leaders as most effective. ^14,15 The intersectional effects of discrimination may intensify these barriers for racialized women and nonbinary people.^16,17 Fundamentally, diversity and inclusion in our institutions is important on the basis of basic human rights for all people.¹⁸Health care leadership in Europe and the United States is thought to lack gender and racial diversity.^19–22 The degree to which these imbalances exist across Canadian health care institutions is not clear. Despite past evidence that men hold a disproportionate number of health care leadership positions in Canada,^23,24 a recent study noted gender parity among leaders of provincial and territorial ministries of health.²⁵ Among university faculty^26,27 and administration, ²⁸ racialized individuals appear to be under-represented, suggesting that a similar trend may exist in health care leadership.Race and gender can be studied in many ways.²⁹ Perceived race is a measure of “the race that others believe you to be,” and these assessments “influence how people are treated and form the basis of racial discrimination including nondeliberate actions that nonetheless lead to socioeconomic inequities.”²⁹ Similarly, perceived gender refers to an observer’s assumptions about a person’s gender, which can lead to differential and unfair treatment. ³⁰ Assessing perceived race and gender provides crucial insights into the ways in which social inequalities are informed and produced.²⁹ In this study, we sought to identify the perceived race and gender of hospital executive leaders in Canada and of nonelected leaders of the provincial and territorial health ministries. Furthermore, we wanted to analyze how the perceived racial composition of health care leadership compares with the racial composition of the population in the geographic areas that these leaders serve.     

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.     

Risk of vascular events in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica

Background:

Polymyalgia rheumatica is one of the most common inflammatory rheumatologic conditions in older adults. Other inflammatory rheumatologic disorders are associated with an excess risk of vascular disease. We investigated whether polymyalgia rheumatica is associated with an increased risk of vascular events.

Methods:

We used the General Practice Research Database to identify patients with a diagnosis of incident polymyalgia rheumatica between Jan. 1, 1987, and Dec. 31, 1999. Patients were matched by age, sex and practice with up to 5 patients without polymyalgia rheumatica. Patients were followed until their first vascular event (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, peripheral vascular) or the end of available records (May 2011). All participants were free of vascular disease before the diagnosis of polymyalgia rheumatica (or matched date). We used Cox regression models to compare time to first vascular event in patients with and without polymyalgia rheumatica.

Results:

A total of 3249 patients with polymyalgia rheumatica and 12 735 patients without were included in the final sample. Over a median follow-up period of 7.8 (interquartile range 3.3–12.4) years, the rate of vascular events was higher among patients with polymyalgia rheumatica than among those without (36.1 v. 12.2 per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4–2.9). The increased risk of a vascular event was similar for each vascular disease end point. The magnitude of risk was higher in early disease and in patients younger than 60 years at diagnosis.

Interpretation:

Patients with polymyalgia rheumatica have an increased risk of vascular events. This risk is greatest in the youngest age groups. As with other forms of inflammatory arthritis, patients with polymyalgia rheumatica should have their vascular risk factors identified and actively managed to reduce this excess risk.Inflammatory rheumatologic disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis,^1,2 systemic lupus erythematosus,^2,3 gout,⁴ psoriatic arthritis^2,5 and ankylosing spondylitis^2,6 are associated with an increased risk of vascular disease, especially cardiovascular disease, leading to substantial morbidity and premature death.^2–6 Recognition of this excess vascular risk has led to management guidelines advocating screening for and management of vascular risk factors.^7–9Polymyalgia rheumatica is one of the most common inflammatory rheumatologic conditions in older adults,¹⁰ with a lifetime risk of 2.4% for women and 1.7% for men.¹¹ To date, evidence regarding the risk of vascular disease in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica is unclear. There are a number of biologically plausible mechanisms between polymyalgia rheumatica and vascular disease. These include the inflammatory burden of the disease,^12,13 the association of the disease with giant cell arteritis (causing an inflammatory vasculopathy, which may lead to subclinical arteritis, stenosis or aneurysms),¹⁴ and the adverse effects of long-term corticosteroid treatment (e.g., diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia).^15,16 Paradoxically, however, use of corticosteroids in patients with polymyalgia rheumatica may actually decrease vascular risk by controlling inflammation.¹⁷ A recent systematic review concluded that although some evidence exists to support an association between vascular disease and polymyalgia rheumatica,¹⁸ the existing literature presents conflicting results, with some studies reporting an excess risk of vascular disease^19,20 and vascular death,^21,22 and others reporting no association.^23–26 Most current studies are limited by poor methodologic quality and small samples, and are based on secondary care cohorts, who may have more severe disease, yet most patients with polymyalgia rheumatica receive treatment exclusively in primary care.²⁷The General Practice Research Database (GPRD), based in the United Kingdom, is a large electronic system for primary care records. It has been used as a data source for previous studies,²⁸ including studies on the association of inflammatory conditions with vascular disease²⁹ and on the epidemiology of polymyalgia rheumatica in the UK.³⁰ The aim of the current study was to examine the association between polymyalgia rheumatica and vascular disease in a primary care population.     

A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property

Background:

Many hospitals have adopted smoke-free policies on their property. We examined the consequences of such polices at two Canadian tertiary acute-care hospitals.

Methods:

We conducted a qualitative study using ethnographic techniques over a six-month period. Participants (n = 186) shared their perspectives on and experiences with tobacco dependence and managing the use of tobacco, as well as their impressions of the smoke-free policy. We interviewed inpatients individually from eight wards (n = 82), key policy-makers (n = 9) and support staff (n = 14) and held 16 focus groups with health care providers and ward staff (n = 81). We also reviewed ward documents relating to tobacco dependence and looked at smoking-related activities on hospital property.

Results:

Noncompliance with the policy and exposure to secondhand smoke were ongoing concerns. Peoples’ impressions of the use of tobacco varied, including divergent opinions as to whether such use was a bad habit or an addiction. Treatment for tobacco dependence and the management of symptoms of withdrawal were offered inconsistently. Participants voiced concerns over patient safety and leaving the ward to smoke.

Interpretation:

Policies mandating smoke-free hospital property have important consequences beyond noncompliance, including concerns over patient safety and disruptions to care. Without adequately available and accessible support for withdrawal from tobacco, patients will continue to face personal risk when they leave hospital property to smoke.Canadian cities and provinces have passed smoking bans with the goal of reducing people’s exposure to secondhand smoke in workplaces, public spaces and on the property adjacent to public buildings.^1,2 In response, Canadian health authorities and hospitals began implementing policies mandating smoke-free hospital property, with the goals of reducing the exposure of workers, patients and visitors to tobacco smoke while delivering a public health message about the dangers of smoking.^2–5 An additional anticipated outcome was the reduced use of tobacco among patients and staff. The impetuses for adopting smoke-free policies include public support for such legislation and the potential for litigation for exposure to second-hand smoke.^2,4Tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor associated with a variety of cancers, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory conditions.^6–11 Patients in hospital who use tobacco tend to have more surgical complications and exacerbations of acute and chronic health conditions than patients who do not use tobacco.^6–11 Any policy aimed at reducing exposure to tobacco in hospitals is well supported by evidence, as is the integration of interventions targetting tobacco dependence.¹² Unfortunately, most of the nearly five million Canadians who smoke will receive suboptimal treatment,¹³ as the routine provision of interventions for tobacco dependence in hospital settings is not a practice norm.^14–16 In smoke-free hospitals, two studies suggest minimal support is offered for withdrawal, ^17,18 and one reports an increased use of nicotine-replacement therapy after the implementation of the smoke-free policy.¹⁹Assessments of the effectiveness of smoke-free policies for hospital property tend to focus on noncompliance and related issues of enforcement.^17,20,21 Although evidence of noncompliance and litter on hospital property^2,17,20 implies ongoing exposure to tobacco smoke, half of the participating hospital sites in one study reported less exposure to tobacco smoke within hospital buildings and on the property.¹⁸ In addition, there is evidence to suggest some decline in smoking among staff.^18,19,21,22We sought to determine the consequences of policies mandating smoke-free hospital property in two Canadian acute-care hospitals by eliciting lived experiences of the people faced with enacting the policies: patients and health care providers. In addition, we elicited stories from hospital support staff and administrators regarding the policies.     

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.     

Effect of influenza vaccination in patients with asthma

BACKGROUND:Although annual influenza vaccination is recommended for persons with asthma, its effectiveness in this patient population is not well described. We evaluated the effect of influenza vaccination in the current and previous seasons in preventing influenza among people with asthma.METHODS:Using population health data from the Navarre region of Spain for the 2015/16 to 2019/20 influenza seasons, we conducted a test-negative case–control study to assess the effect of influenza vaccination in the current and 5 previous seasons. From patients presenting to hospitals and primary health care centres with influenza-like illness who underwent testing for influenza, we estimated the effects of influenza vaccination among patients with asthma overall and between those presenting as inpatients or outpatients, as well as between patients with and without asthma.RESULTS:Of 1032 patients who had asthma and were tested, we confirmed that 421 had influenza and the remaining 611 were test-negative controls. We found that the average effect of influenza vaccination was 43% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 to 0.80) for current-season vaccination regardless of previous doses, and 38% (adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.96) for vaccination in previous seasons only. Effects were similar for outpatients and inpatients. Among patients with asthma and confirmed influenza, current-season vaccination did not reduce the odds of hospital admission (adjusted OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.18). Influenza vaccination effects were similar for patients with and without asthma.INTERPRETATION:We estimated that, on average, current or previous influenza vaccination of people with asthma prevented almost half of influenza cases. These results support recommendations that people with asthma receive influenza vaccination.

Influenza can lead to serious complications in people with risk factors, and the main preventive measure is vaccination. ¹ Influenza infection can exacerbate symptoms of asthma. Because people with asthma have an increased risk of severe complications and hospital admission when infected with influenza virus,^2–5 annual influenza vaccination is recommended worldwide for people with asthma.^1,5–8People who are targeted for influenza vaccination frequently accumulate several doses over successive years,⁹ and adherence to influenza vaccination has been found to be higher in those with asthma.¹⁰ Patients with asthma frequently receive long-term corticosteroid treatment (inhaled or oral), therefore, their systemic immunity may have a reduced response to vaccines.^5,11,12Effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing primary health care consultations or hospital admissions in people with asthma has been evaluated in observational studies,^13–15 but we are unaware of any studies that compared the effect in preventing outpatient and inpatient cases or assessed the effect of vaccination in previous seasons.^13,16 The test-negative design is the suggested method to evaluate effectiveness of influenza vaccines in preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza, because it achieves good comparability and control of bias.^17–19 Only 1 study used this method for people with asthma over several seasons.¹³ The pooled analysis of several seasons, the inclusion of inpatients and outpatients, and consideration of vaccination history would provide a complete view of the effect of influenza vaccination in people with asthma.Our objective was to assess the average effect of influenza vaccination status in the current and previous seasons on preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza among people with asthma. We also aimed to compare these estimates with those of the target population for influenza vaccination.     

Effect of nasal balloon autoinflation in children with otitis media with effusion in primary care: an open randomized controlled trial

Background:Otitis media with effusion is a common problem that lacks an evidence-based nonsurgical treatment option. We assessed the clinical effectiveness of treatment with a nasal balloon device in a primary care setting.Methods:We conducted an open, pragmatic randomized controlled trial set in 43 family practices in the United Kingdom. Children aged 4–11 years with a recent history of ear symptoms and otitis media with effusion in 1 or both ears, confirmed by tympanometry, were allocated to receive either autoinflation 3 times daily for 1–3 months plus usual care or usual care alone. Clearance of middle-ear fluid at 1 and 3 months was assessed by experts masked to allocation.Results:Of 320 children enrolled, those receiving autoinflation were more likely than controls to have normal tympanograms at 1 month (47.3% [62/131] v. 35.6% [47/132]; adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99 to 1.88) and at 3 months (49.6% [62/125] v. 38.3% [46/120]; adjusted RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.83; number needed to treat = 9). Autoinflation produced greater improvements in ear-related quality of life (adjusted between-group difference in change from baseline in OMQ-14 [an ear-related measure of quality of life] score −0.42, 95% CI −0.63 to −0.22). Compliance was 89% at 1 month and 80% at 3 months. Adverse events were mild, infrequent and comparable between groups.Interpretation:Autoinflation in children aged 4–11 years with otitis media with effusion is feasible in primary care and effective both in clearing effusions and improving symptoms and ear-related child and parent quality of life. Trial registration: ISRCTN, No. 55208702.Otitis media with effusion, also known as glue ear, is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear, without symptoms or signs of an acute ear infection. It is often associated with viral infection.^1–3 The prevalence rises to 46% in children aged 4–5 years,⁴ when hearing difficulty, other ear-related symptoms and broader developmental concerns often bring the condition to medical attention.^3,5,6 Middle-ear fluid is associated with conductive hearing losses of about 15–45 dB HL.⁷ Resolution is clinically unpredictable,^8–10 with about a third of cases showing recurrence.¹¹ In the United Kingdom, about 200 000 children with the condition are seen annually in primary care.^12,13 Research suggests some children seen in primary care are as badly affected as those seen in hospital.^7,9,14,15 In the United States, there were 2.2 million diagnosed episodes in 2004, costing an estimated $4.0 billion.¹⁶ Rates of ventilation tube surgery show variability between countries,^17–19 with a declining trend in the UK.²⁰Initial clinical management consists of reasonable temporizing or delay before considering surgery.¹³ Unfortunately, all available medical treatments for otitis media with effusion such as antibiotics, antihistamines, decongestants and intranasal steroids are ineffective and have unwanted effects, and therefore cannot be recommended.^21–23 Not only are antibiotics ineffective, but resistance to them poses a major threat to public health.^24,25 Although surgery is effective for a carefully selected minority,^13,26,27 a simple low-cost, nonsurgical treatment option could benefit a much larger group of symptomatic children, with the purpose of addressing legitimate clinical concerns without incurring excessive delays.Autoinflation using a nasal balloon device is a low-cost intervention with the potential to be used more widely in primary care, but current evidence of its effectiveness is limited to several small hospital-based trials²⁸ that found a higher rate of tympanometric resolution of ear fluid at 1 month.^29–31 Evidence of feasibility and effectiveness of autoinflation to inform wider clinical use is lacking.^13,28 Thus we report here the findings of a large pragmatic trial of the clinical effectiveness of nasal balloon autoinflation in a spectrum of children with clinically confirmed otitis media with effusion identified from primary care.