The perspectives of people with IBD provided in-depth understanding of contextual factors that influence work roles. They identified personal strategies to manage health and choices about work, environmental supports that promote timely workplace accommodations, and appropriate social insurance benefits as facilitators of work retention for people with IBD.

Findings illustrate the changing needs for health-related information over the course of IBD, and with evolving health and life circumstances. Practitioners can be responsive to information needs of people with IBD by having high-quality information available at the right time in a variety of formats and by supporting the incorporation of information in daily life.

No abstract

Background Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application. Methods Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists. Result 53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline. Conclusions Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed.

BACKGROUND: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) often make highly personal decisions about whether or not to disclose their HIV status in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine current practices that support people living with HIV to make workplace disclosure decisions and to understand factors that affect disclosure decision-making. METHODS: Ninety-four people who provide health, social and peer-based services responded to an on-line survey about their experiences supporting workplace disclosure decisions of employees living with HIV. RESULTS: Respondents identified a range of strategies to support workplace disclosure decision-making. One-third of respondents were only a little or not confident in their abilities to support people in making disclosure decisions and 32% expressed little or no confidence in the resources available. Respondents working at HIV-specific organizations, as compared to respondents not working at those organizations, were more confident supporting people with disclosure decisions and in available resources, p < .05. Perceived barriers to disclosure decisions included stigma, lack of knowledge, and personal factors. Supports for decision-making resided within personal, workplace and societal contexts. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides important understanding about the complexity of disclosure decision-making and strategies that people living with HIV can use to address this complex issue.

Background Several studies have demonstrated a high utilization of colonoscopy at shorter and longer time intervals than guideline recommendations. Innovative methods are required to increase adherence to recommended timing. Aims 1) Explore current approaches used by endoscopist (EPs) and primary care providers (PCPs) to determine and communicate colonoscopy surveillance intervals (SI) between EPs, PCPs, and patients. 2) Obtain feedback for refining a decision tool to facilitate recommended SI. 3) Determine participant agreement of recommended SIs with current guidelines. Methods We conducted 4 focus groups (FGs); 3 FGs included EPs (n=12) and EPs in training (n=6); 1 FG included PCPs (n=4). FG questions explored use of guidelines, communication and follow-up practices with PCPs, EPs and patients, and challenges to follow-up. Participants were also asked for feedback about a prototype polyp SI decision tool that was developed using an algorithm synthesizing current Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, US Multisociety Task Force, and expert panel guidelines on SI. FGs were audio-recorded and transcribed for qualitative content analysis. FGs were analysed separately, then compared for similarities and differences. Finally, participants individually made interval recommendations for 7 common endoscopy scenarios. Responses were analyzed for agreement with the guidelines used to develop the decision tool. Results EPs reported not routinely referring to guidelines and were confident in their memory of the intervals although some reported checking occasionally. Many indicated they may use the tool in a web based or mobile application for more complicated scenarios, although some would never use it. Concerns regarding the tool included being up to date with research evidence and having required data to input on hand. PCPs reported the tool may be useful as a communication aid to involve patients in decision making. A challenge noted in all FGs was role confusion regarding communicating, tracking, and scheduling patients’ future procedures on time. Analysis of EPs (n=9) responses to the 7 scenarios showed that percent agreement with guidelines was low: 44% scored below 50% correct. Participants with the highest agreement scored 6/7; responses with the lowest agreement scored 0/7. The most common score was 3/7. Conclusions EPs appeared to be overconfident in their recommendations, but many were open to trying a website or mobile application decision tool to make evidence-based colonoscopy SI recommendations. Understanding, among PCPs and EPs, regarding responsibility for communicating results and scheduling follow-up surveillance for patients was inconsistent. Participant feedback informed development of a mobile application that is currently being pilot tested. Funding Agencies Research Manitoba