ObjectiveThe main objectives of this study were to synthesise and compare pandemic preparedness strategies issued by the federal and provincial/territorial (P/T) governments in Canada and to assess whether COVID-19 public health (PH) measures were tailored towards priority populations, as defined by relevant social determinants of health.MethodsThis scoping review searched federal and P/T websites on daily COVID-19 pandemic preparedness strategies between 30 January and 30 April 2020. The PROGRESS-Plus equity-lens framework was used to define priority populations. All definitions, policies and guidelines of PH strategies implemented by the federal and P/T governments to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission were included. PH measures were classified using a modified Public Health Agency of Canada Framework for Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness.ResultsA total of 722 COVID-19 PH measures were issued during the study period. Of these, home quarantine (voluntary) (n=13.0%; 94/722) and retail/commerce restrictions (10.9%; n=79/722) were the most common measures introduced. Many of the PH orders, including physical distancing, cancellation of mass gatherings, school closures or retail/commerce restrictions began to be introduced after 11 March 2020. Lifting of some of the PH orders in phases to reopen the economy began in April 2020 (6.5%; n=47/722). The majority (68%, n=491/722) of COVID-19 PH announcements were deemed mandatory, while 32% (n=231/722) were recommendations. Several PH measures (28.0%, n=202/722) targeted a variety of groups at risk of socially produced health inequalities, such as age, religion, occupation and migration status.ConclusionsMost PH measures centred on limiting contact between people who were not from the same household. PH measures were evolutionary in nature, reflecting new evidence that emerged throughout the pandemic. Although ~30% of all implemented COVID-19 PH measures were tailored towards priority groups, there were still unintended consequences on these populations.

Background Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss has long been associated with adverse findings in early prostate cancer. Studies to date have yet to employ quantitative methods (qPTEN) for measuring of prognostically relevant amounts of PTEN loss in postsurgical settings and demonstrate its clinical application. Methods PTEN protein levels were measured by immunohistochemistry in radical prostatectomy samples from training (n = 410) and validation (n = 272) cohorts. PTEN loss was quantified per cancer cell and per tissue microarray core. Thresholds for identifying clinically relevant PTEN loss were determined using log-rank statistics in the training cohort. Univariate (Kaplan-Meier) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazards) analyses on various subpopulations were performed to assess biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) and were independently validated. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results PTEN loss in more than 65% cancer cells was most clinically relevant and had statistically significant association with reduced BRFS in training (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.59 to 3.87; P < .001) and validation cohorts (HR = 4.22, 95% CI = 2.01 to 8.83; P < .001). The qPTEN scoring method identified patients who recurred within 5.4 years after surgery (P < .001). In men with favorable risk of biochemical recurrence (Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment – Postsurgical scores <5 and no adverse pathological features), qPTEN identified a subset of patients with shorter BRFS (HR = 5.52, 95% CI = 2.36 to 12.90; P < .001) who may be considered for intensified monitoring and/or adjuvant therapy. Conclusions Compared with previous qualitative approaches, qPTEN improves risk stratification of postradical prostatectomy patients and may be considered as a complementary tool to guide disease management after surgery.

Background Injury is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Trauma training is a cost-effective way to improve injury outcomes. Several trauma programs have been implemented in LMICs; however, their scope and effectiveness remain unclear. In this review, we sought to describe and assess the current state of trauma training in LMICs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global for trauma training courses in LMICs. An additional gray literature search was conducted on university, governmental, and non- governmental organizations’ websites to identify trauma-related postgraduate medical education (PGME) opportunities. Results Most studies occurred in sub-Saharan Africa and participants were primarily physicians/surgeons, medical students/residents, and nurses. General and surgical trauma management courses were most common, followed by orthopedic trauma or plastic surgery trauma/burn care courses. 32/45 studies reported on participant knowledge and skills, 27 of which had minimal follow-up. Of the four studies commenting on cost of courses, only one demonstrated cost-effectiveness. Three articles evaluated post-course effects on patient outcomes, two of which failed to demonstrate significant improvements. Overall, 43.0% of LMICs have PGME programs with defined trauma competency requirements. Conclusions Current studies on trauma training in LMICs do not clearly demonstrate sustainability, cost-effectiveness, nor improved outcomes. Trauma training programs should be in response to a need, championed locally, and work within a cohesive system to demonstrate concrete benefits. We recommend standardized and contextualized trauma training with recertifications in LMICs for lasting and improved trauma care.

No abstract