Plain English summary Researchers have explored different types of treatment to help people with a mental illness with other problems they might be experiencing, such as their health condition and quality of life. Care models that involve many different health care providers working together to provide complete physical and mental health care are becoming popular. There has been a push from the research community to understand the value of including people with lived experience in such programs. While research suggests that people with lived experience may help a patient’s treatment, there is little evidence on including them in a team based program. This paper describes how our research team included a person with lived experience of psychosis in both the research and care process. We list some guiding principles we used to work through some of the common challenges that are mentioned in research. Lastly, experiences from the research team, lessons learned, and a personal statement from the person with lived experience (AA) are provided to help future researchers and people with lived experience collaborate in research and healthcare. Abstract Background In our current healthcare system, people with a mental illness experience poorer physical health and early mortality in part due to the inconsistent collaboration between primary care and specialized mental health care. In efforts to bridge this gap, hospitals and primary care settings have begun to take an integrated approach to care by implementing collaborative care models to treat a variety of conditions in the past decade. The collaborative care model addresses common barriers to treatment, such as geographical distance and lack of individualized, evidence-based, measurement-based treatment. Person(s) with lived experience (PWLE) are regarded as ‘experts by experience’ in the scope of their first-hand experience with a diagnosis or health condition. Research suggests that including PWLE in a patient’s care and treatment has significant contributions to the patient’s treatment and overall outcome. However, there is minimal evidence of including PWLE in collaborative care models. This paper describes the inclusion of a PWLE in a research study and collaborative care team for youth with early psychosis. Aims To discuss the active involvement of a PWLE on the research and collaborative care team and to describe the research team’s experiences and perspectives to facilitate future collaborations. Method This paper describes the inclusion of a PWLE on our research team. We provide a selective review of the literature on several global initiatives of including PWLE in different facets of the healthcare system. Additionally, we outline multiple challenges of involving PWLE in research and service delivery. Examples are provided on how recruitment and involvement was facilitated, with the guidance of several principles. Lastly, we have included a narrative note from the PWLE included in our study, who is also a contributing author to this paper (AA), where she comments on her experience in the research study. Conclusion Including PWLE in active roles in research studies and collaborative care teams can enhance the experience of the researchers, collaborative care team members, and PWLE. We showcase our method to empower other researchers and service providers to continue to seek guidance from PWLE to provide more comprehensive, collaborative care with better health outcomes for the patient, and a more satisfying care experience for the provider.

No abstract

Background: Levels of prescription opioid (PO) dispensing have been rising in Canada – also in global comparison – since the mid-2000s, and are co-occurring with extensive POrelated morbidity and mortality. Previous analyses have demonstrated correlations between PO dispensing and related harm levels, yet also distinct heterogeneous interprovincial POdispensing patterns, in regards to quantities and individual PO formulations. Several systemlevel interventions have been implemented recently (since 2012) to address high PO-use levels and related harms in Canada; the effects of these interventions on PO-dispensing levels remain largely unexamined. Objectives: Our aim was to examine over-time patterns and trends of levels of PO dispensing quantitatively (in defined daily doses [DDDs]) for ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ opioids and qualitatively (by individual PO formulations) by province and Canada total, for the period of 2005–2016. Methods: We examined annual PO-dispensing levels, by ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ POs (individual PO formulations, but excluding methadone), by province and for Canada total, from 2005– 2016. Raw dispensing information for POs were obtained from IMSQuintiles CompuScript [new name: IQVIA], based on monthly retail dispensing data from a representative sample of community pharmacies covering about 80% of all dispensing episodes in Canada. These data were converted into annual dispensing values in DDDs (DDD/1,000 population/day), based on standard methodology, for the PO formulation groups of interest. Patterns and trends of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ POs and individual PO formulations were examined descriptively, aided by segmented regression analyses to identify significant break-points in over-time trends. In addition, changes in ‘strong’/‘weak’ PO dispensing ratios between 2005 and 2016 were examined. Results: ‘Weak’ PO use remained largely stable across Canada over the study period. For ‘strong’ PO dispensing, half of the provinces featured consistent increases, while remaining provinces presented initial increases with subsequently reverting downward trends at divergent levels. Dispensing of individual ‘strong’ PO formulations varied interprovincially; specifically, substantial decreases for oxycodone co-occurred with increases in other ‘strong’ PO formulations. The dispensing ratios for ‘strong’/‘weak’ POs increased significantly across jurisdictions between 2005 and 2016 (P < .05). Limitations: Retail pharmacy-based data do not cover the total – but the large majority – of PO dispensing in Canada. There are limitations to DDD/1,000 population/day as a comparative measurement unit for PO dispensing. The causal contribution of interventions associated with changes in PO dispensing observed cannot be verified with the data available. Conclusions: Heterogeneous trends for PO dispensing, driven mostly by variations in ‘strong’ PO use, continue to be observed provincially across Canada. Recent changes in PO dispensing are likely influenced by recent intervention efforts (e.g., PO de-scheduling, monitoring, guidelines) aiming to reduce PO-related harms, which, however, have shown limited impact on PO-dispensing levels to date. Key words: Opioids, prescribing, dispensing, interventions, policy, population, monitoring, Canada

Canada has been home to comparatively extreme developments in prescription opioid (PO) availability and related harms (e.g. morbidity, mortality) post-2000. Following persistent pan-Canadian increases in PO use, select control measures were implemented and PO dispensing levels—while only inconsistently by province—inverted, and began to plateau or decrease post-2012. We examined annual PO dispensing levels in Canada up until 2018, based on representative prescription sample data from community-based retail pharmacies. Annual prescription-based dispensing data were converted into defined daily doses/1000 population/day by province, and mainly categorized into ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ opioids. All provinces indicated decreasing trends in strong PO levels in most recent years, yet with inter-provincial differences of up to one magnitude in 2018; in about half the provinces, dispensing fell to below-2005 levels. British Columbia had the largest decline in strong PO dispensing from its peak rate (− 48.5%) in 2011. Weak opioid dispensing trends remained more inconsistent and bifurcated across Canada. The distinct effects of individual—including many provincially initiated and governed—PO control measures urgently need to be evaluated. In the meantime, recent reductions in general PO availability across Canada appear to have contributed to shortages in opioid supply for existent, sizable (including non-medical) user populations and may have contributed to recent marked increases in illicit opioid use and harms (including rising deaths).

No abstract