Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Canadian Health Coalition"

In response to the growing gap between discovery and the optimal application of medical advancements to health care delivery, countries the world over have developed large and well funded programs to reduce these gaps. Although these programs vary in nature, they have generally largely focused more on reducing the gap in bench to bedside research. Canada’s strong biomedical and patient oriented research (POR) community has a strong base from which to build, but requires support in order to fill the missing elements needed to take full advantage of the important unmet needs in health related research. In Canada, a coalition of funders of medical research, led by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) is developing a large and comprehensive program to build a Canadian infrastructure that will provide these missing elements, and further strengthen POR in Canada. This coalition proposes to put particular emphasis on bedside to community POR, including phase 3 clinical trials, to take advantage of and improve the sustainability of Canada’s unique universal health care system. The major initiatives in POR developed by so many countries, including Canada clearly heralds a new era in clinical research, one that the Canadian research community needs to take full advantage of.

COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted older adults in long-term care (LTC) facilities in Canada. There are opportunities to learn from this crisis and to improve systems of care in order to ensure that older adults in LTC enjoy their right to the highest attainable standard of health. Measures are needed to ensure the mental health of older adults in LTC during COVID-19. The Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry (CAGP) and Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (CCSMH) have developed the following position statements to address the mental health needs of older adults in LTC facilities, their family members, and LTC staff. We outlined eight key considerations related to mental health care in LTC during COVID-19 to optimize the mental health of this vulnerable population during the pandemic.

BackgroundCannabis Use Disorder (CUD) is an emerging and diverse challenge among older adults.MethodsThe Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health, with financial support from Health Canada, has produced evidencebased guidelines on the prevention, identification, assessment, and treatment of this form of substance use disorder.ConclusionsOlder adults may develop CUD in the setting of recreational and even medical use. Clinicians should remain vigilant for the detection of CUD, and they should be aware of strategies for prevention and managing its emergence and consequences The full version of these guidelines can be accessed at www.ccsmh.ca.

Background:In 2019, EULAR launched the #Time2Work campaign [1] to raise awareness of the impact of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases on individuals, society, and the economy. Building on this theme, the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (CAPA) developed a social media campaign and Twitter chat in collaboration with international patient advocates and organizations. The Twitter chat built upon CAPA’s successful development of workplace resources for people living with arthritis [2].Objectives:To deliver an international #ArthritisAtWork social media campaign on Twitter, in support of the #Time2Work campaign.Methods:A one-hour Twitter Chat was held on World Arthritis Day (October 12, 2019) on arthritis in the workplace (#ArthritisAtWork) from 18:00 to 19:00 UTC. The chat was hosted by CAPA and co-hosted by Simon Stones, a patient advocate from the United Kingdom (UK) and CreakyJoints, patient-driven arthritis organization in the United States (US). The Twitter Chat questions were co-developed in advance by the hosts, and blog posts were shared from CAPA’s website. Each host also promoted the Twitter Chat through their websites, newsletters and online communities. A social media analytical tool, Symplur, was used to measure audience engagement using the hashtag #ArthritisAtWork. In addition, pertinent Tweets before, during, and after the chat were obtained. The analysis of themes was undertaken to identify common issues and questions.Results:One hundred and ten users participated in the Twitter chat between 17:20 and 19:20 UTC. Participants included people living with arthritis, researchers, patient organizations, health information outlets and academic institutions. During this period, 565 tweets were shared between participants in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Spain, UK and US. There were 3.352 million Twitter impressions. This represents the number of times a tweet appears to users in either their timeline or search results. Emergent themes of the analysis include:common workplace challenges such as employer attitudes and stigma;effective workplace supports such as prioritizing tasks and requesting workplace accommodations; andareas of improvement such as instituting workplace policies, flexible workplace approaches and education for employees and managers.Conclusion:The social media campaign was successful in reaching a diverse audience and supporting the #Time2Work campaign. Social media tools can provide an important social support for people living with arthritis as they navigate workplace challenges. It also offers a more contemporary platform to engage the international community on issues of common interest. Working together, internationally helps expand reach and reduce barriers in communication. Research can be conducted to measure potential behavior change that leverages digital social support for people living with arthritis.References:[1]EULAR (2019). Press release “EULAR launches Time2Work campaign to highlight the importance of keeping people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in work. Available from:https://www.eular.org/sysModules/obxContent/files/www.eular.2015/1_42291DEB-50E5-49AE-5726D0FAAA83A7D4/time2work_campaign_press_release_final.pdf2. CAPA (2019). Arthritis in the Workplace: Resources for Patients by Patients. Available from:http://arthritispatient.ca/arthritis-in-the-workplace-resources-for-patients-by-patients/Disclosure of Interests:Laurie Proulx Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Speakers bureau: I have provided speaking services to Sanofi and Eli Lilly. These engagements do not relate to this abstract., Simon Stones Consultant of: I have been a paid consultant for Envision Pharma Group and Parexel. This does not relate to this abstract., Speakers bureau: I have been a paid speaker for Actelion and Janssen. These do not relate to this abstract., Joseph Coe: None declared, Dawn Richards Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Consultant of: Dawn has done small consulting projects on patient engagement for companies., Speakers bureau: Dawn has been a paid speaker for several companies., Linda Wilhelm Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Nathalie Robertson Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Janet Gunderson Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Alexandra Sirois Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma., Annette McKinnon Grant/research support from: Sources of grants and support received by the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance (including in-kind support) in the last two years include: AbbVie Canada, Alliance for Safe Biologic Medicines, Amgen Canada, Arthritis Alliance of Canada, The Arthritis Society, Best Medicines Coalition, CADTH, Canadian Rheumatology Association, Eli Lilly Canada, European League Against Rheumatism, Janssen Canada, Manulife, Novartis Canada, Ontario Rheumatology Association, Pfizer Canada (including Pfizer Hospira), Purdue Pharma Canada, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma.

BackgroundA coalition (Strategic Clinical Improvement Committee), with a mandate to promote physician quality improvement (QI) involvement, identified hospital laboratory test overuse as a priority. The coalition developed and supported the spread of a multicomponent initiative about reducing repetitive laboratory testing and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) ordering across one Canadian province. This study’s purpose was to identify coalition factors enabling medicine and emergency department (ED) physicians to lead, participate and influence appropriate BUN test ordering.MethodsUsing sequential explanatory mixed methods, intervention components were grouped as person focused or system focused. Quantitative phase/analyses included: monthly total and average of the BUN test for six hospitals (medicine programme and two EDs) were compared pre initiative and post initiative; a cost avoidance calculation and an interrupted time series analysis were performed (participants were divided into two groups: high (>50%) and low (<50%) BUN test reduction based on these findings). Qualitative phase/analyses included: structured virtual interviews with 12 physicians/participants; a content analysis aligned to the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Behaviour Change Wheel. Quotes from participants representing high and low groups were integrated into a joint display.ResultsMonthly BUN test ordering was significantly reduced in 5 of 6 participating hospital medicine programmes and in both EDs (33% to 76%), resulting in monthly cost avoidance (CAN$900–CAN$7285). Physicians had similar perceptions of the coalition’s characteristics enabling their QI involvement and the factors influencing BUN test reduction.ConclusionsTo enable physician confidence to lead and participate, the coalition used the following: a simply designed QI initiative, partnership with a coalition physician leader and/or member; credibility and mentorship; support personnel; QI education and hands-on training; minimal physician effort; and no clinical workflow disruption. Implementing person-focused and system-focused intervention components, and communication from a trusted local physician—who shared data, physician QI initiative role/contribution and responsibility, best practices, and past project successes—were factors influencing appropriate BUN test ordering.

In September 2009, Montreal, Quebec hosted the International Psychogeriatric Association's 14th International Congress, in collaboration with the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the Canadian Academy of Geriatric Psychiatry, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors' Mental Health, the Canadian Geriatrics Society, and the Société Québecoise de Psychogériatrie. The theme of the Congress was the “Pathway to Prevention”, and the presentations focused on progress made to date on the prevention of late-life mental disorders, barriers the field is still facing, and future achievements that will be needed for this goal to be achieved.

This qualitative comparative case study examined factors related to politics that might explain the notably different active transportation (AT - walking, cycling, and public transit use) rates achieved in Helsinki, Finland (a leading European city in AT, where 77 per cent of people use primarily AT for daily transportation) and Ottawa, Canada (a leading North American city in AT, but where the AT rate is 28.5 per cent). Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) - a policy process theory - individual focused interviews were conducted with 47 active transportation experts from the two cities. Document review was employed as a secondary method. The results are discussed in three articles written for peer reviewed journals – the first two concentrating on the findings from Helsinki and Ottawa respectively, and the third article comparing the findings from both cities. Overall, differences stemming from the ACF category of relatively stable parameters (i.e., stable background-level factors) including land use, transportation planning traditions, and political systems were identified as likely important in explaining the discrepancy in AT rates.

Systems-level homelessness report cards are an intricate part of managing and resolving homelessness within a community. Homelessness report cards can be used to both educate communities around the complexities of homelessness and capture pertinent data required to formulate evidence-based strategies towards ending (rather than managing) homelessness. The process of developing and implementing homelessness report cards can be fraught with challenges relating to: limited resources; fragmented information; and political roadblocks. To help reduce the potential of these roadblocks, a system-level Homelessness Outcome Reporting Normative framework (the “HORN Framework”) was developed. The HORN Framework is based on a literature review and synthesis of the best-practice, systems-level homelessness report card development and implementation methods. The framework was then tested in a case study with the Greater Victoria Coalition to End Homelessness (GVCEH), through the creation of their 2010 Greater Victoria Homelessness Report Card. The framework and case study results are presented in this thesis.

AbstractThe premise of this book is that public health policy is locked in a stalemate between the evidence-based and the politics-driven policy-making perspectives. This chapter argues that local public health actors on the ground develop strategies to work around this stalemate and circulate their evidence into the policy process. These strategies are indicative of a politically savvy conception of the policy process. The argument builds on data from an empirical study of active transportation policies in Montréal and Toronto (Canada) using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). In several instances, public health actors sidestepped political constraints by circulating their data to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and citizens or by building “coalitions” with stakeholders sharing similar policy values. We argue that these strategies for circulating evidence show how science and politics are intertwined in local practices. Local public health actors sometimes take the moral high ground but are also keenly attentive and attuned to local politics. The following strategies could help sidestep the stalemate: better connecting public health evidence with practical policy solutions; developing sustained interactions with non-public health actors working with or advocating for these policy solutions and getting the help of boundary actors skilled in connecting problems and solutions across policy sectors.

AbstractThe 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) was a call from the UN that brought together key players with the objective to provide potential solutions for transforming current food systems and increasing their sustainability, resilience, equitability, nutritional value, and efficiency. Key actors from science, business, policy, healthcare, the private sector, civil society, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, youth organisations, consumer groups, environmental activists, and other key stakeholders came together before, during and after the Summit, to review how food is produced, processed, and consumed across the world in order to bring about tangible, positive changes to the world’s food systems.The White/Wiphala Paper on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems (FAO, 2021a) was a critical reference, an evidence-based contribution to the 2021 UNFSS that highlights the crucial role of Indigenous Peoples and their food systems as game-changers and shows us how we can respect, better understand, and protect said systems. The paper resulted from the collective work of Indigenous Peoples’ leaders, scientists, researchers, and UN staff. More than 60 Indigenous and non-Indigenous contributions from 39 organisations and ten experts in six socio-cultural regions were received by the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems. The Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems is a knowledge platform that brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous experts, scientists, and researchers to co-create intercultural knowledge and provide evidence about the sustainability and resilience of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems (https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/global-hub/en/), which coordinated the writing and editing of the paper through a Technical Editorial Committee.The White/Wiphala paper emphasised the centrality of a rights-based approach, ensuring Indigenous Peoples’ rights and access to land, natural resources, traditional territorial management practices, governance, and livelihoods, as well as addressing the resilience and sustainability of their foods systems. The paper demonstrates how the preservation of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems is necessary for the health of more than 476 million Indigenous Peoples globally while providing valid solutions for addressing some of the challenges humankind faces on sustainability, resilience, and spirituality.It is essential to note critical developments that have occurred since the White/Wiphala paper was published in mid-2021, the July Pre-Summit in Rome, and the September Summit in New York, followed by COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021.For example, at COP26, little attention was given to food systems, despite their contribution to the climate crisis, with responsibility for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2021b). COP26 highlighted the need to focus on mitigation strategies and adaptation in the face of the current climate crisis. These strategies must include Indigenous Peoples’ food systems as game-changers for effective climate adaptation strategies that they have been testing and adjusting for hundreds of years.At the UNFSS Pre-Summit in Rome, the Indigenous Peoples’ delegation voiced their concerns and presented three key proposals: the recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems as a game-changing solution; the launching of a coalition on Universal Food Access and Indigenous Peoples’ food systems; and the request to create an Indigenous Peoples’ fund. All their concerns and proposals were rejected at the Pre-Summit, including launching a Coalition on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems and Universal Food Access.In the aftermath of the UNFSS Pre-Summit, and thanks to the leadership of the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), Indigenous leaders following the UNFSS, seven countries, and the FAO Indigenous Peoples Unit (PSUI), timely discussions and collective work led to the creation of a new Coalition on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems.Thanks to the leadership of Mexico and the support of Canada, the Dominican Republic, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, and Spain, along with the support of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII), the Global-Hub on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems, and FAO, this Coalition was announced at the New York September UNFSS Summit.The Coalition on Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems builds upon the White/Wiphala Paper, establishing the objective of ensuring the understanding, respect, recognition, inclusion, and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems while providing evidence about their game-changing and systemic nature. To support this objective, the Coalition organises its work around two main goals: Goal 1: Respect, recognise, protect and strengthen Indigenous Peoples’ food systems across the world; and Goal 2: Disseminate and scale-up traditional knowledge and good practices from Indigenous Peoples’ food systems with potential to transform global food systems across the board.

This Chapter provides a case narrative of the role of medical doctors in healthcare reforms in the England, starting with the creation of the NHS (1948), up until the Coalition government reforms and their aftermath (2010-2020). The focus is on the two main policy actors and their complex relationship over time. As for the Canadian case study, the reform narrative is followed by analysis along three thematic axis: 1) the drivers and shapers of medical politics; 2) the strategies used by medical doctors and governments to deal with evolving context and 3) The implications for medical politics and healthcare reforms.

Abstract Fifteen years ago Rovner and Katz (1993) declared that nursing homes “are the modern mental institutions for the elderly, but the training of staff and physicians, processes of care, and the recognition and treatment of mental disorders lag behind the current state of scienti1c knowledge.” Indeed, lack of trained staff continues to be frequently cited as one of the key problems in the care of nursing home residents. Recent guidelines recommend that long-term care homes “should have an education and training program for staff related to the needs of residents with depression and/or behavioral concerns” (Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health, 2006). There is evidence that poor education and training can compromise resident care and safety (Anderson et al., 2005). This chapter will explore some of the key issues related to the education of staff in the long-term care setting. In exploring this issue it is important to bear in mind that although education is necessary, it is often not suf1cient to improve clinical practice. Enabling care providers to make the transition from “knowing” to “doing” is complex and multifaceted, and the process of successful knowledge transfer and knowledge utilization will vary among different practice settings.

The differences and similarities in health policy between the United States (U.S.) and Canada provide useful examples of how political institutions can shape democratic governance. These institutions have shaped both the obstacles to rapid welfare state expansion and the nature of the political reform coalitions that have been able to break through those obstacles. This chapter explores contending explanations of welfare state development, and then develops an institutional approach with which to parse though crucial differences between the U.S. and Canadian welfare states, and policy evolution in their healthcare systems. The chapter focuses on the role that political institutions have played in influencing national policy choices and in explaining policy differences between the U.S. and Canada. This comparison also bridges institutionalist theories with a more nuanced understanding of the way in which institutional arrangements interact with parties, policies, and welfare state outcomes.