No abstract

Background: COVID-19 related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. Results: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. Conclusions: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19-related acute illness.

Background: COVID-19 related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including three patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 being discharged from the hospital who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation. Conclusions: This recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials assessing the role of post-discharge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.

Our goal was to determine whether introducing rapid point-of-care (POC) whole-blood HIV testing as alternative to standard laboratory-based testing is acceptable and changes the rate of receiving test results at an anonymous testing program. From December 2001 through April 2002 all patients requesting HIV testing at Hassle Free Clinic in Toronto were offered rapid POC or standard testing. Routine clinical data was collected. All patients were invited to complete a questionnaire evaluating testing procedure. Test counselors also completed evaluation questionnaires. HIV-positive patients were invited to an in-depth interview. There were 1610 patients, 91% chose the rapid POC test. Overall 98.9% of patients received final results, compared with 93% in the previous year. Among the rapid testers, 100% received an initial result, and 18 of 22 testing positive returned for confirmatory results. Among standard testers 90.8% returned for results (p < 0.001 compared to rapid testers) including all of the 4 with positive tests. There were 1257 (79%) patients who completed questionnaires, 4 with positive tests agreed to interviews, and test counselors evaluated every visit. Standard testers indicated significantly greater difficulty than rapid testers with the testing procedure. Test counselors also indicated that standard testers had greater difficulty. HIV-positive patients coped well with the testing procedure and indicated high quality counseling was important. Rapid HIV testing was acceptable to patients and test counselors, provided more patients with test results and reduced total time and number of visits. High-quality pretest and posttest counseling is particularly important for rapid testers with positive results. The impact of false-positive results requires further study.

Health issues unique to women and differences in healthcare experiences have recently gained attention as health plans and systems seek to extend and improve health promotion and disease prevention in the population. Successful efforts focused on enhancing quality of care will require information from the patient's perspective on how to improve such services to best support women's attempts to lead healthy and productive lives. The National Centers of Excellence in Women's Health program (CoE), sponsored by the Office on Women's Health within the Department of Health and Human Services, is based on an integrated model uniting research, training, healthcare, and community education and outreach. To examine women's concept and definitions of healthcare quality, 18 focus groups comprising 137 women were conducted nationwide on experiences and attributes of healthcare that women value in primary care. Following the focus groups, a woman-focused healthcare satisfaction instrument was developed for the purpose of assessing and improving healthcare delivery. We describe the qualitative results of the focus group study.

BackgroundIncreasingly, older adults and their informal caregivers are using the Internet to search for health-related information. There is a proliferation of health information online, but the quality of this information varies, often based on exaggerated or dramatic findings, and not easily comprehended by consumers. The McMaster Optimal Aging Portal (Portal) was developed to provide Internet users with high-quality evidence about aging and address some of these current limitations of health information posted online. The Portal includes content for health professionals coming from three best-in-class resources (MacPLUS, Health Evidence, and Health Systems Evidence) and four types of content specifically prepared for the general public (Evidence Summaries, Web Resource Ratings, Blog Posts, and Twitter messages).ObjectiveOur objectives were to share the findings of the usability evaluation of the Portal with particular focus on the content features for the general public and to inform designers of health information websites and online resources for older adults about key usability themes.MethodsData analysis included task performance during usability testing and qualitative content analyses of both the usability sessions and interviews to identify core themes.ResultsA total of 37 participants took part in 33 usability testing sessions and 21 focused interviews. Qualitative analysis revealed common themes regarding the Portal’s strengths and challenges to usability. The strengths of the website were related to credibility, applicability, browsing function, design, and accessibility. The usability challenges included reluctance to register, process of registering, searching, terminology, and technical features.ConclusionsThe study reinforced the importance of including end users during the development of this unique, dynamic, evidence-based health information website. The feedback was applied to iteratively improve website usability. Our findings can be applied by designers of health-related websites.

Background: Information on patient symptoms can be obtained by patient self-report or medical records review. Both methods have limitations.

Background. 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.