Objective To assess health equity-oriented COVID-19 reporting across Canadian provinces and territories, using a scorecard approach. Methods A scan was performed of provincial and territorial reporting of five data elements (cumulative totals of tests, cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and population size) across three units of aggregation (province or territory level, health regions, and local areas) (15 "overall" indicators), and for four vulnerable settings (long-term care and detention facilities, schools, and homeless shelters) and eight social markers (age, sex, immigration status, race/ethnicity, healthcare worker status, occupational sector, income, and education) (180 "equity-related" indicators) as of December 31, 2020. Per indicator, one point was awarded if case-delimited data were released, 0.7 points if only summary statistics were reported, and 0 if neither was provided. Results were presented using a scorecard approach. Results Overall, information was more complete for cases and deaths than for tests, hospitalizations, and population size denominators needed for rate estimation. Information provided on jurisdictions and their regions, overall, tended to be more available (average score of 58%, "D") than that for equity-related indicators (average score of 17%, "F"). Only British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario provided case-delimited data, with Ontario and Alberta providing case information for local areas. No jurisdiction reported on outcomes according to patients' immigration status, race/ethnicity, income, or education. Though several provinces reported on cases in long-term care facilities, only Ontario and Quebec provided detailed information for detention facilities and schools, and only Ontario reported on cases within homeless shelters and across occupational sectors. Conclusion One year into the pandemic, socially stratified reporting for COVID-19 outcomes remains sparse in Canada. However, several "best practices" in health equity-oriented reporting were observed and set a relevant precedent for all jurisdictions to follow for this pandemic and future ones.

This pilot mixed methods evaluation describes the impact of an antioppression workshop on allyship development among a group of public health graduate students. After completing a mandatory antioppression workshop, a survey including closed- and open-ended questions was administered to 41 public health students specializing in health promotion. Closed-ended questions gathered basic demographic data and Likert-type scale responses to assess changes in participant knowledge, awareness, and attitudes surrounding antioppression concepts discussed during the workshop, while open-ended questions asked respondents to reflect on how such changes might influence their development as allies. A response rate of 65.85% (27 respondents) was achieved. The majority of the study group were between the ages of 20 and 24 years (74.07%), self-identified as straight (77.8%), and self-identified as non-White (77.8%), while almost the entire group identified as female (92.59%). Five key themes emerged from a directed content analysis of qualitative data, identifying the importance of antioppression workshops for allyship development: conducive environments, positionality, knowledge, active listening and learning, and advocacy. These themes were used to construct a mixed methods joint display for comparative interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data. Mixed methods analysis revealed that antioppression workshops can promote allyship development by increasing knowledge of key terms and concepts associated with antioppression and facilitating critical reflections on power, privilege, and social location. Our findings demonstrate a profound need for ongoing antioppression training among future public health students and professionals.

Background Although continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the first line treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients, the perioperative adherence rate is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the perioperative adherence rate of patients with OSA with a CPAP prescription and the effect of adherence on nocturnal oxygen saturation. Methods This prospective cohort study included adult surgical patients with a diagnosis of OSA with CPAP prescription undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery. Patients were divided into CPAP adherent and non-adherent groups based on duration of usage (≥ 4 h/night). Overnight oximetry was performed preoperatively and on postoperative night 1 and 2 (N1, N2). The primary outcome was adherence rate and the secondary outcome was nocturnal oxygen saturation. Results One hundred and thirty-two patients completed the study. CPAP adherence was 61% preoperatively, 58% on postoperative N1, and 59% on N2. Forty-nine percent were consistently CPAP adherent pre- and postoperatively. Using a linear fixed effects regression, oxygen desaturation index (ODI) was significantly improved by CPAP adherence (p = 0.0011). The interaction term CPAP x N1 was significant (p = 0.0015), suggesting that the effect of CPAP adherence varied on N1 vs preoperatively. There was no benefit of CPAP adherence on postoperative mean SpO2, minimum SpO2, and percentage of sleep duration with SpO2 < 90%. Use of supplemental oxygen therapy was much lower in the CPAP adherent group vs non-adherent group (9.8% vs 46.5%, p <  0.001). Conclusions Among patients with a preoperative CPAP prescription, approximately 50% were consistently adherent. CPAP adherence was associated with improved preoperative ODI and the benefit was maintained on N1. These modest effects may be underestimated by a higher severity of OSA in the CPAP adherent group and a higher rate of oxygen supplementation in the non-adherent group. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov registry (NCT02796846).