Jay Shaw
Women's College Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jay Shaw.
International Journal of Integrated Care | 2017
Mylaine Breton; Carolyn Steele Grey; Nicolette Sheridan; Jay Shaw; John Parsons; Paul Wankah; Timothy Kenealy; Ross Baker; Louise Belzile; Yves Couturier; Jean-Louis Denis; Walter P. Wodchis
The aim of this paper is to set the foundation for subsequent empirical studies of the “Implementing models of primary care for older adults with complex needs” project, by introducing and presenting a brief descriptive comparison of the nine case studies in Quebec, Ontario and New Zealand. Each case is described based on key dimensions of Rainbow model of Valentijn and al (2013) with a focus on “meso level” integration. Meso level integration is represented by organizational and professional elements of the Rainbow Model, which are of particular interest in our nine case studies. Each of the three cases in Ontario and three in New Zealand are different and described separately. In Quebec, a local health services network model is presented across the three cases studied with variations in the way it is implemented. The three cases selected in the three jurisdictions under study were not chosen to be representative of wider practice within each country, but rather represent interesting and unique models of community-based primary healthcare integration. Similarities and variations in the integrated care models, context and dimension of integration offer insights regarding core component of integration of services, offering a foundational understanding of the cases on which future analysis will be based.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | 2016
Laura Desveaux; Payal Agarwal; Jay Shaw; Jennifer M. Hensel; Geetha Mukerji; Nike Onabajo; Husayn Marani; Trevor Jamieson; Onil Bhattacharyya; Danielle Martin; Muhammad Mamdani; Lianne Jeffs; Walter P. Wodchis; Noah Ivers; R. Sacha Bhatia
BackgroundManagement of diabetes through improved glycemic control and risk factor modification can help prevent long-term complications. Much diabetes management is self-management, in which healthcare providers play a supporting role. Well-designed e-Health solutions targeting behavior change can improve a range of measures, including glycemic control, perceived health, and a reduction in hospitalizations.MethodsThe primary objective of this study is to evaluate if a mobile application designed to improve self-management among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) improves glycemic control compared to usual care. The secondary objectives are to determine the effects on patient experience and health system costs; evaluate how and why the intervention worked as observed; and gain insight into considerations for system-wide scale-up. This pragmatic, randomized, wait-list-control trial will recruit adult participants from three Diabetes Education Programs in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome is glycemic control (measured by HbA1c). Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported experience measures, health system utilization, and intervention usability. The primary outcome will be analyzed using an ANCOVA, with continuous secondary outcomes analyzed using Poisson regression. Direct observations will be conducted of the implementation and application-specific training sessions provided to each site. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with participants, healthcare providers, organizational leaders, and system stakeholders as part of the embedded process evaluation. Thematic analysis will be applied to the qualitative data in order to describe the relationships between (a) key contextual factors, (b) the mechanisms by which they effect the implementation of the intervention, and (c) the impact on the outcomes of the intervention, according to the principles of Realist Evaluation.DiscussionThe use of mobile health and virtual tools is on the rise in health care, but the evidence of their effectiveness is mixed and their evaluation is often lacking key contextual data. Results from this study will provide much needed information about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a mobile application to improve diabetes self-management. The process evaluation will provide valuable insight into the contextual factors that influence the application effectiveness, which will inform the potential for adoption and scale.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02813343. Registered on 24 June 2016 (retrospectively registered).Trial Sponsor: Ontario Telemedicine Network
Health Policy | 2018
Mylaine Breton; Sabrina T. Wong; Mélanie Ann Smithman; Sara A. Kreindler; Jalila Jbilou; Emily Gard Marshall; Jason M. Sutherland; Astrid Brousselle; Jay Shaw; Valorie A. Crooks; Damien Contandriopoulos; Martin Sasseville; Michael Green
Introduction: Centralized waiting lists (CWLs) are one solution to reduce the problematic number of patients without a regular primary care provider. This article describes different models of CWLs for unattached patients implemented in seven Canadian provinces and identifies common issues in the implementation of these CWLs. Methods: Logic models of each provinces intervention were built after a grey literature review, 42 semi-structured interviews and a validation process with key stakeholders were performed. Results: Our analysis across provinces showed variability and common features in the design of CWLs such as same main objective to attach patients to a primary care provider; implementation as a province-wide program with the exception of British Columbia; management at a regional level in most provinces; voluntary participation for providers except in two provinces where it was mandatory for providers to attach CWL patients; fairly similar registration process across the provinces; some forms of prioritization of patients either using simple criteria or assessing for vulnerability was performed in most provinces except New Brunswick. Conclusion: Despite their differences in design, CWLs implemented in seven Canadian provinces face common issues and challenges regarding provider capacity to address the demand for attachment, barriers to the attachment of more vulnerable and complex patients as well as non-standardized approaches to evaluating their effectiveness. Sharing experiences across provinces as CWLs were being implemented would have fostered learning and could have helped avoid facing similar challenges.
International Journal of Integrated Care | 2017
Ann McKillop; Jay Shaw; Nicolette Sheridan; Carolyn Steele Gray; Peter Carswell; Walter P. Wodchis; Martin J. Connolly; Jean-Louis Denis; G. Ross Baker; Timothy Kenealy
Introduction: Many studies have investigated the process of healthcare implementation to understand better how to bridge gaps between recommended practice, the needs and demands of healthcare consumers, and what they actually receive. However, in the implementation of integrated community-based and integrated health care, it is still not well known which approaches work best. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and metanarrative synthesis of literature on implementation frameworks, theories and models in support of a research programme investigating CBPHC for older adults with chronic health problems. Results: Thirty-five reviews met our inclusion criteria and were appraised, summarised, and synthesised. Five metanarratives emerged 1) theoretical constructs; 2) multiple influencing factors; 3) development of new frameworks; 4) application of existing frameworks; and 5) effectiveness of interventions within frameworks/models. Four themes were generated that exposed the contradictions and synergies among the metanarratives. Person-centred care is fundamental to integrated CBPHC at all levels in the health care delivery system, yet many implementation theories and frameworks neglect this cornerstone. Discussion: The research identified perspectives central to integrated CBPHC that were missing in the literature. Context played a key role in determining success and in how consumers and their families, providers, organisations and policy-makers stay connected to implementing the best care possible. Conclusions: All phases of implementation of a new model of CBPHC call for collaborative partnerships with all stakeholders, the most important being the person receiving care in terms of what matters most to them.
BMC Health Services Research | 2017
Mylaine Breton; Michael Green; Sara A. Kreindler; Jason M. Sutherland; Jalila Jbilou; Sabrina T. Wong; Jay Shaw; Valorie A. Crooks; Damien Contandriopoulos; Mélanie Ann Smithman; Astrid Brousselle
BackgroundHaving a regular primary care provider (i.e., family physician or nurse practitioner) is widely considered to be a prerequisite for obtaining healthcare that is timely, accessible, continuous, comprehensive, and well-coordinated with other parts of the healthcare system. Yet, 4.6 million Canadians, approximately 15% of Canada’s population, are unattached; that is, they do not have a regular primary care provider. To address the critical need for attachment, especially for more vulnerable patients, six Canadian provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists for unattached patients. These waiting lists centralize unattached patients’ requests for a primary care provider in a given territory and match patients with providers. From the little information we have on each province’s centralized waiting list, we know the way they work varies significantly from province to province. The main objective of this study is to compare the different models of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in six provinces of Canada to each other and to available scientific knowledge to make recommendations on ways to improve their design in an effort to increase attachment of patients to a primary care provider.MethodsA logic analysis approach developed in three steps will be used. Step 1: build logic models that describe each province’s centralized waiting list through interviews with key stakeholders in each province; step 2: develop a conceptual framework, separate from the provincially informed logic models, that identifies key characteristics of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients and factors influencing their implementation through a literature review and interviews with experts; step 3: compare the logic models to the conceptual framework to make recommendations to improve centralized waiting lists in different provinces during a pan Canadian face-to-face exchange with decision-makers, clinicians and researchers.DiscussionThis study is based on an inter-provincial learning exchange approach where we propose to compare centralized waiting lists and analyze variations in strategies used to increase attachment to a regular primary care provider. Fostering inter-provincial healthcare systems connectivity to improve centralized waiting lists’ practices across Canada can lever attachment to a regular provider for timely access to continuous, comprehensive and coordinated healthcare for all Canadians and particular for those who are vulnerable.
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy | 2017
Helen Barratt; Jay Shaw; Lisa Simpson; R. Sacha Bhatia; Naomi Fulop
Health services researchers have an important role to play in helping health care systems around the world provide high quality, affordable services. However, gaps between the best evidence and current practice suggest that researchers need to work in new ways. The production of research that meets the needs and priorities of the health system requires researchers to work in partnership with decision-makers to conduct research and then mobilize the findings. To do this effectively, researchers require a new set of skills that are not conventionally taught as part of doctoral research programmes. In addition to wider contextual changes, researchers need to understand better the needs of decision-makers, for example through short placements in health system decision-making settings. Second, researchers need to learn to accommodate those needs throughout the research process, including identifying research needs; conducting research collaboratively with decision-makers and producing effective research products.
BMC Psychiatry | 2016
Jennifer M. Hensel; Jay Shaw; Lianne Jeffs; Noah Ivers; Laura Desveaux; Ashley Cohen; Payal Agarwal; Walter P. Wodchis; Joshua Tepper; Darren Larsen; Anita M. McGahan; Peter Cram; Geetha Mukerji; Muhammad Mamdani; Rebecca Yang; Ivy Wong; Nike Onabajo; Trevor Jamieson; R. Sacha Bhatia
International Journal for Quality in Health Care | 2017
Laura Desveaux; J I Mitchell; Jay Shaw; Noah Ivers
International Journal of Integrated Care | 2018
G. Ross Baker; Jay Shaw; Carolyn Steele-Gray; Elana Commisso; Jennifer Rayner; Walter P. Wodchis
International Journal of Integrated Care | 2017
G. Baker; Jay Shaw; Jennifer Gutberg; Timothy Kenealy; Peter Carswell; Mylaine Breton; Louise Belzile; Jean-Louis Denis; Walter P. Wodchis