Anik Giguère

Subcellular Distribution of Cadmium and Nickel in Chronically Exposed Wild Fish: Inferences Regarding Metal Detoxification Strategies and Implications for Setting Water Quality Guidelines for Dissolved Metals

ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to investigate metal detoxification in chronically exposed juvenile yellow perch (YP: Perca flavescens) and to field test the commonly assumed threshold toxicity model. Fish were collected from lakes located along a cadmium (Cd) and nickel (Ni) concentration gradient. Ambient dissolved metal concentrations were measured to evaluate exposure and total hepatic metal concentrations were determined as a measure of metal bioaccumulation. Hepatic metal partitioning among potentially metal-sensitive fractions (heat-denatured proteins, organelles) and detoxified metal fractions (metallothionein) was determined after differential centrifugation of YP liver homogenates. Major proportions of hepatic Cd were found in the heat-stable cytosolic peptides and proteins fraction (HSP; including metallothioneins), whereas Ni was mainly found in the potentially metal-sensitive heat-denaturable proteins fraction (HDP). For these chronically exposed fish there was no threshold exposure concentration below which binding of Cd or Ni to the heat-denaturable protein fraction or the organelle fraction did not occur. Metal detoxification was clearly incomplete and P. flavescens was subject to some metal-related stress, as evidenced notably by endocrine perturbations. Similar subcellular partitioning results were obtained when juvenile yellow perch were transferred from a reference lake to a Cd-contaminated lake and Cd accumulation was followed over time; there was no accumulation threshold below which Cd binding to the putative metal-sensitive fractions (HDP and organelles) did not occur. The presence of Cd and Ni in these fractions, even for low exposure concentrations and low hepatic accumulation, contradicts the threshold toxicity model that underpins metal toxicology theory and that is implicitly used in setting water quality guidelines for metals. Chronically exposed YP appear to have settled for a tradeoff between the cost of turning on their detoxification apparatus at full capacity, to completely suppress metal binding to metal-sensitive sites, and the alternative cost of allowing some binding of inappropriate metals to metal-sensitive sites.

Impact of an Educational Program on Pain Management in Patients With Cancer Living at Home

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of an educational homecare program on pain relief in patients with advanced cancer. DESIGN Quasi-experimental (pretest post-test, nonequivalent group). SETTING Four community-based primary care centers providing social and healthcare services in the Quebec City region of Canada. SAMPLE 80 homecare patients with advanced cancer who were free of cognitive impairment, who presented with pain or were taking analgesics to relieve pain, and who had a life expectancy of six weeks or longer. METHODS The educational intervention included information regarding pain assessment and monitoring using a daily pain diary and the provision of specific recommendations in case of loss of pain control. Pain intensity data were collected prior to the intervention, and reassessments were made two and four weeks later. Data on beliefs were collected at baseline and two weeks. All data were collected by personal interviews. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES Patients beliefs about the use of opioids; average and maximum pain intensities. FINDINGS Patients beliefs regarding the use of opioids were modified successfully following the educational intervention. Average pain was unaffected in the control group and was reduced significantly in patients who received the educational program. The reduction remained after controlling for patients initial beliefs. Maximum pain decreased significantly over time in both the experimental and control groups. CONCLUSIONS An educational intervention can be effective in improving the monitoring and relief of pain in patients with cancer living at home. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING Homecare nurses can be trained to effectively administer the educational program during their regular homecare visits.

User-centered design and the development of patient decision aids: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundProviding patient-centered care requires that patients partner in their personal health-care decisions to the full extent desired. Patient decision aids facilitate processes of shared decision-making between patients and their clinicians by presenting relevant scientific information in balanced, understandable ways, helping clarify patients’ goals, and guiding decision-making processes. Although international standards stipulate that patients and clinicians should be involved in decision aid development, little is known about how such involvement currently occurs, let alone best practices. This systematic review consisting of three interlinked subreviews seeks to describe current practices of user involvement in the development of patient decision aids, compare these to practices of user-centered design, and identify promising strategies.Methods/designA research team that includes patient and clinician representatives, decision aid developers, and systematic review method experts will guide this review according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA reporting guidelines. A medical librarian will hand search key references and use a peer-reviewed search strategy to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the ACM library, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. We will identify articles across all languages and years describing the development or evaluation of a patient decision aid, or the application of user-centered design or human-centered design to tools intended for patient use. Two independent reviewers will assess article eligibility and extract data into a matrix using a structured pilot-tested form based on a conceptual framework of user-centered design. We will synthesize evidence to describe how research teams have included users in their development process and compare these practices to user-centered design methods. If data permit, we will develop a measure of the user-centeredness of development processes and identify practices that are likely to be optimal.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide evidence of current practices to inform approaches for involving patients and other stakeholders in the development of patient decision aids. We anticipate that the results will help move towards the establishment of best practices for the development of patient-centered tools and, in turn, help improve the experiences of people who face difficult health decisions.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014013241

The systematic evaluation of instruments designed to assess pain in persons with limited ability to communicate

Chronic pain is often underdetected and undertreated in long-term care facilities. The use of self-report measures of pain (such as the visual analogue scale) is often problematic for older adults residing in long-term care because of the high prevalence of visual and auditory deficits and severe cognitive impairment. Observational measures of pain have been developed to address this concern. A systematic grid designed to assess the properties of existing observational measures of pain was used for seniors with dementia. The grid focused on the evaluation of content validity (12 items), construct validity (12 items), reliability (13 items) and clinical utility (10 items). Among the 24 instruments that were evaluated, several were deemed to be promising in the assessment of pain among older persons with severe dementia. Nonetheless, additional research is needed before their routine integration in the practices of long-term care settings.

Decision boxes for clinicians to support evidence-based practice and shared decision making: the user experience

BackgroundThis project engages patients and physicians in the development of Decision Boxes, short clinical topic summaries covering medical questions that have no single best answer. Decision Boxes aim to prepare the clinician to communicate the risks and benefits of the available options to the patient so they can make an informed decision together.MethodsSeven researchers (including four practicing family physicians) selected 10 clinical topics relevant to primary care practice through a Delphi survey. We then developed two one-page prototypes on two of these topics: prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen test, and prenatal screening for trisomy 21 with the serum integrated test. We presented the prototypes to purposeful samples of family physicians distributed in two focus groups, and patients distributed in four focus groups. We used the User Experience Honeycomb to explore barriers and facilitators to the communication design used in Decision Boxes. All discussions were transcribed, and three researchers proceeded to thematic content analysis of the transcriptions. The coding scheme was first developed from the Honeycomb’s seven themes (valuable, usable, credible, useful, desirable, accessible, and findable), and included new themes suggested by the data. Prototypes were modified in light of our findings.ResultsThree rounds were necessary for a majority of researchers to select 10 clinical topics. Fifteen physicians and 33 patients participated in the focus groups. Following analyses, three sections were added to the Decision Boxes: introduction, patient counseling, and references. The information was spread to two pages to try to make the Decision Boxes less busy and improve users’ first impression. To try to improve credibility, we gave more visibility to the research institutions involved in development. A statement on the boxes’ purpose and a flow chart representing the shared decision-making process were added with the intent of clarifying the tool’s purpose. Information about the risks and benefits according to risk levels was added to the Decision Boxes, to try to ease the adaptation of the information to individual patients.ConclusionResults will guide the development of the eight remaining Decision Boxes. A future study will evaluate the effect of Decision Boxes on the integration of evidence-based and shared decision making principles in clinical practice.

Decision aids that support decisions about prenatal testing for Down syndrome: an environmental scan

BackgroundPrenatal screening tests for Down syndrome (DS) are routine in many developed countries and new tests are rapidly becoming available. Decisions about prenatal screening are increasingly complex with each successive test, and pregnant women need information about risks and benefits as well as clarity about their values. Decision aids (DAs) can help healthcare providers support women in this decision. Using an environmental scan, we aimed to identify publicly available DAs focusing on prenatal screening/diagnosis for Down syndrome that provide effective support for decision making.MethodsData sources searched were the Decision Aids Library Inventory (DALI) of the Ottawa Patient Decision Aids Research Group at the Ottawa Health Research Institute; Google searches on the internet; professional organizations, academic institutions and other experts in the field; and references in existing systematic reviews on DAs. Eligible DAs targeted pregnant women, focused on prenatal screening and/or diagnosis, applied to tests for fetal abnormalities or aneuploidies, and were in French, English, Spanish or Portuguese. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible DAs and extracted characteristics including the presence of practical decision support tools and features to aid comprehension. They then performed quality assessment using the 16 minimum standards established by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDASi v4.0).ResultsOf 543 potentially eligible DAs (512 in DALI, 27 from experts, and four on the internet), 23 were eligible and 20 were available for data extraction. DAs were developed from 1996 to 2013 in six countries (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Sweden, and France). Five DAs were for prenatal screening, three for prenatal diagnosis and 12 for both). Eight contained values clarification methods (personal worksheets). The 20 DAs scored a median of 10/16 (range 6–15) on the 16 IPDAS minimum standards.DiscussionNone of the 20 included DAs met all 16 IPDAS minimum standards, and few included practical decision support tools or aids to comprehension.ConclusionsOur results indicate there is a need for DAs that effectively support decision making regarding prenatal testing for Down syndrome, especially in light of the recently available non-invasive prenatal screening tests.

Evidence summaries (decision boxes) to prepare clinicians for shared decision-making with patients: a mixed methods implementation study

BackgroundDecision boxes (Dboxes) provide clinicians with research evidence about management options for medical questions that have no single best answer. Dboxes fulfil a need for rapid clinical training tools to prepare clinicians for clinician-patient communication and shared decision-making. We studied the barriers and facilitators to using the Dbox information in clinical practice.MethodsWe used a mixed methods study with sequential explanatory design. We recruited family physicians, residents, and nurses from six primary health-care clinics. Participants received eight Dboxes covering various questions by email (one per week). For each Dbox, they completed a web questionnaire to rate clinical relevance and cognitive impact and to assess the determinants of their intention to use what they learned from the Dbox to explain to their patients the advantages and disadvantages of the options, based on the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). Following the 8-week delivery period, we conducted focus groups with clinicians and interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Dbox information.ResultsOne hundred clinicians completed the web surveys. In 54% of the 496 questionnaires completed, they reported that their practice would be improved after having read the Dboxes, and in 40%, they stated that they would use this information for their patients. Of those who would use the information for their patients, 89% expected it would benefit their patients, especially in that it would allow the patient to make a decision more in keeping with his/her personal circumstances, values, and preferences. They intended to use the Dboxes in practice (mean 5.6 ± 1.2, scale 1–7, with 7 being “high”), and their intention was significantly related to social norm, perceived behavioural control, and attitude according to the TPB (P < 0.0001). In focus groups, clinicians mentioned that co-interventions such as patient decision aids and training in shared decision-making would facilitate the use of the Dbox information. Some participants would have liked a clear “bottom line” statement for each Dbox and access to printed Dboxes in consultation rooms.ConclusionsDboxes are valued by clinicians. Tailoring of Dboxes to their needs would facilitate their implementation in practice.

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study

BackgroundPatient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations.MethodsTo describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews.ResultsOut of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18–7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23–9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users’ needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities.ConclusionsThere are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

Comparison of matrix with humphrey field analyzer II with SITA

Purpose To study the performance of the Matrix perimeter compared with the Humphrey Field Analyzer II (HFA) with the Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm over the range of contrast sensitivities each machine could estimate. Methods Fifty stable glaucoma subjects at various stages of disease and three normal subjects had visual fields testing done on five different days within 8 weeks with both perimeters. Intraclass correlation coefficient of mean deviation, pattern standard deviation, and the SD of repeat measurements were evaluated. The repeatability of the sensitivity estimates at individual locations and global indices was quantified, as well as their dependence on disease severity. The relationship between sensitivity determinations with the two instruments was explored (principal curve analysis). Results Mean deviation on the HFA ranged from −31 to +2.5 dB. The mean deviation and pattern standard deviation had intraclass correlation coefficients above 0.90 for both instruments. Over most of the useful range (above 20 dB on the HFA), a difference of 1 dB for the Matrix corresponded to a difference of 2 dB for the HFA. The SD of repeat measurements increased with disease severity with HFA, but not with Matrix, except that values of 12 or 34 dB were highly variable on repeat. Variability was reduced for both HFA and Matrix when duplicate sensitivity values were used. A single Matrix test provided only 15 possible sensitivity values, unevenly spaced, but the average of duplicate measurements provided more numerous sensitivity values. A learning effect was detected for Matrix. Conclusions The decibel values reported by the two machines are not equivalent. Variability of sensitivity determinations is affected more by the sensitivity level with HFA than with Matrix. Duplicate measurements for baseline and follow-up evaluation could be important, especially for Matrix. Further information on learning effects is needed, as is commercially available progression software for Matrix.

Developing a two‐sided intervention to facilitate shared decision‐making in haemophilia: decision boxes for clinicians and patient decision aids for patients

People with haemophilia face many treatment decisions, which are largely informed by evidence from observational studies. Without evidence‐based ‘best’ treatment options, patient preferences play a large role in decisions regarding therapy. The shared decision‐making (SDM) process allows patients and health care providers to make decisions collaboratively based on available evidence, and patient preferences. Decision tools can help the SDM process. The objective of this project was to develop two‐sided decision tools, decision boxes for physicians and patient decision aids for patients, to facilitate SDM for treatment decisions in haemophilia. Methods. Development of the decision tools comprised three phases: topic selection, prototype development and usability testing with targeted end‐users. Topics were selected using a Delphi survey. Tool prototypes were based on a previously validated framework and were informed by systematic literature reviews. Patients, through focus groups, and physicians, through interviews, reviewed the prototypes iteratively for comprehensibility and usability. Results. The chosen topics were: (i) prophylactic treatment: when to start and dosing, (ii) choosing factor source and (iii) immunotolerance induction: when to start and dosing. Intended end users (both health care providers and haemophilia patients and caregivers) were engaged in the development process. Overall perception of the decision tools was positive, and the purpose of using the tools was well received. Conclusions. This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing decision tools for haemophilia treatment decisions. It also provides anecdotal evidence of positive perceptions of such tools. Future directions include assessment of the tools’ practical value and impact on clinical practice.