A recent report by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada demonstrates the inferior health status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada when compared to non-Indigenous populations. This scoping review maps out the available literature concerning acute health care for Indigenous Peoples in Canada in order to better understand the health care issues they face. All existing articles concerning health care provided to Indigenous Peoples in Canada in acute settings were included in this review. The targeted studied outcomes were access to care, health care satisfaction, hospital visit rates, mortality, quality of care, length of stay and cost per hospitalisation. 114 articles were identified. The most studied outcomes were hospitalisation rates (58.8%), length of stay (28.0%), mortality (25.4%) and quality of care (24.6%) Frequently studied topics included pulmonary disease, injuries, cardiovascular disease and mental illness. Indigenous Peoples presented lower levels of satisfaction and access to care although they tend to be over-represented in hospitalisation rates for acute care. Greater inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the health care system and in the training of health care providers is necessary to ensure a better quality of care that is culturally safe for Indigenous Peoples.

Background Family medicine is a branch of medicine that manages common and long-term illnesses in children and adults. Family physicians in particular play a major role and their scope of practice is expected to impact patient and population. However, little is known about its impact on physicians. We aimed to assess the effects of scope of practice on family physician outcomes. Methods We performed a systematic review that we reported using PRISMA guidelines. For the inclusion criteria, any study exploring an association between the scope of practice and physician outcomes was considered. Three bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and ERIC were consulted through OVID interface from their respective inceptions to November, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of studies using appropriate tools. We conducted data synthesis using a narrative form. GRADE was used for evaluating quality of cumulative evidence. Results In total, we included 12 studies with 38,732 participants from 6927 citations identified. Eleven of them were cross-sectional, and one was a cohort study with acceptable methodological quality. We found that: 1) family physicians with diverse clinical and nonclinical activities significantly improve their job satisfaction (p<0.05); 2) family physicians with a variety of clinical practices significantly improve their competences and health status (p<0.05); 3) family physicians who perform clinical procedures (mainly extended to gynecological procedures) significantly improve their psychosocial outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction) (p<0.05); and 4) some associations are not statistically significant (e.g., relation between variety of practice settings and outcomes). We observed that the evidence available has a very low level. Conclusions Our findings suggest that the scope of practice may be favorably associated with some family physician outcomes but with a very low level of evidence available. Based on these findings, healthcare system managers could monitor the scope of practice among family physicians and encourage future research in this field. Systematic review registration Our protocol was registered under the number CRD42019121990 in PROSPERO.

Background: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them.

No abstract

Background Collaboration between biomedical research and community-based primary health care actors is essential to translate evidence into clinical practice. However, little is known about the characteristics and impacts of implementing collaborative models. Thus, we sought to identify and describe collaboration models that bridge biomedical research and community-based primary health care in chronic disease management. Methods We conducted a scoping review using Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2020, to identify studies describing or evaluating collaboration models. We also searched grey literature, screened reference lists, and contacted experts to retrieve further relevant references. The list of studies was then refined using more specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted relevant data (characteristics of studies, participants, collaborations, and outcomes). No bias assessment was performed. A panel of experts in the field was consulted to interpret the data. Results were presented with descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. Results Thirteen studies presenting 20 unique collaboration models were included. These studies were conducted in North America (n = 7), Europe (n = 5) and Asia (n = 1). Collaborations were implemented between 1967 and 2014. They involved a variety of profiles including biomedical researchers (n = 20); community-based primary health care actors (n = 20); clinical researchers (n = 15); medical specialists (n = 6); and patients, citizens, or users (n = 5). The main clinical focus was cardiovascular disease (n = 8). Almost half of the collaborations operated at an international level (n = 9) and the majority adopted either a network (n = 7) or hierarchical structure (n = 6). We identified significant implementation barriers (lack of knowledge, financial support, and robust management structure) and collaboration facilitators (partnership, cooperation, multidisciplinary research teams). Out of the 20 included collaboration models, seven reported measurable impact. Conclusion We identified a large variety of collaboration models representing several clinical and research profiles and fields of expertise. As they are all based in high-income countries, further research should aim to identify collaborations in low-income countries, to determine which models and/or characteristics, could better translate evidence into clinical practice in these contexts.