No abstract

We conducted a prospective observational study to (1) determine usage and construct validity of a method to gauge the cognitive impact of information derived from daily e-mail, and (2) describe self-reported impacts of research-based synopses (InfoPOEMs) delivered as e-mail. Ratings of InfoPOEMs using an Impact assessment scale provided (a) data on usage of the impact assessment method, (b) reports of impact by InfoPOEM and by doctor and (c) data for analysis of construct validity of the scale. PARTICIPANTS were family physicians or general practitioners who rated at least five InfoPOEMs delivered on e-mail. For each InfoPOEM rated, 0.1 continuing education credit was awarded by the College of Family Physicians of Canada. Use of the impact assessment scale linked to a daily InfoPOEM was sustained during the 150-day study period. 1,007 participants submitted 61,493 reports of 'cognitive impact' by rating on average 61 InfoPOEMs (range 5-111). 'I learned something new' was most frequently reported. 'I was frustrated as there was not enough information or nothing useful' was the most frequently reported negative type of impact. The proportion of reports of 'No Impact' varied substantially across individual InfoPOEMs. Impact patterns suggested an 8 or 9-factor solution. Our Impact assessment method facilitates knowledge transfer by promoting two-way exchange between providers of health information and family doctors. Providers of health information can use this method to better understand the impact of research-based synopses. Sustaining current practice and increasing knowledge about new developments in medicine are important outcomes arising from research-based synopses delivered as e-mail, in addition to practice change.

Primary health care practitioners routinely search for information within electronic knowledge resources. We proposed four levels of outcomes of informationseeking: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and patient health outcomes. Our objective was to produce clinical vignettes for describing and testing these levels. We conducted a mixed methods study combining a quantitative longitudinal study and a qualitative multiple case study. Participants were 10 nurses, 10 medical residents, and 10 pharmacists. They had access to an online resource, and did 793 searches for treatment recommendations. Using the Information Assessment Method (IAM), participants rated their searches for each of the four levels. Rated searches were examined in interviews guided by log reports and a think-aloud protocol. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described the four levels of outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes. We produced 130 clinical vignettes. Specifically, 46 vignettes (35.4%) corresponded to clinical situations where information use was associated with one or more than one type of positive patient health outcome: increased patient knowledge (n = 28), avoidance of unnecessary or inappropriate intervention (n = 25), prevention of disease or health deterioration (n = 9), health improvement (n = 6), and increased patient satisfaction (n = 3). Results suggested information use was associated with perceived benefits for patients. This may encourage clinicians to search for information more often when they feel the need. Results supported the four proposed levels of outcomes, which can be transferable to other information-seeking contexts.

Youth mental health (YMH) services are greatly underutilized, particularly for migrant youth. Collaborative models of care offer promising avenues, but research on these treatment modalities is still scarce, particularly for migrants. The goal of this exploratory study is to better understand quality of care including factors improving access to care and collaborative YMH services use, efficacy and satisfaction, for this vulnerable population. This qualitative study relies on a multi-informants (youth, parents, clinicians) and multiple case study design to explore YMH collaborative services for migrant youth living in an urban setting (Montreal, Canada). Participants are five young patients (12–15 years old), one of their parents and their primary care therapist (N = 15). They come from migrant families, have a psychiatric diagnosis and have been receiving mental health services in a collaborative care setting for at least 6 months. Transcripts of semi-structured interviews for the five triads were thematically analyzed to draw similarities and contrasts between actors, across and within case-studies. Based on these findings, four themes emerged concerning the optimal care setting for collaborative YMH services for migrant families: (1) providing an equilibrium between communication, collaboration and privacy/confidentiality, (2) special attention to ensuring the continuity of care and the creation of a welcoming environment where trusting relationships can develop, (3) the inclusion of family intervention, and (4) the provision of collaborative decision-making pathways to care, addressing interprofessional and interinstitutional collaboration as well as cultural differences in explanatory models and values.

This mixed‐method study explores the accessibility of developmental assets among Egyptian and Roma minority youth in Albania during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Six focus groups were conducted in August 2020 with Egyptian ( n = 16) and Roma ( n = 15) adolescents (14–20 years, M age = 16.71; SD age = 2.00; 14 girls and 17 boys). In addition, adolescents rated how much they experienced each developmental asset. Descriptive and thematic analyses highlighted: (1) low developmental assets and barriers to accessing resources, (2) mental health concerns and coping strategies, (3) the role of proximal contexts of life, and (4) experiences within the society in terms of discrimination, integration, and contribution to society. Inter‐sectoral community‐based interventions are urgently needed to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on minority youth.

BackgroundOnline consumer health information addresses health problems, self-care, disease prevention, and health care services and is intended for the general public. Using this information, people can improve their knowledge, participation in health decision-making, and health. However, there are no comprehensive instruments to evaluate the value of health information from a consumer perspective.ObjectiveWe collaborated with information providers to develop and validate the Information Assessment Method for all (IAM4all) that can be used to collect feedback from information consumers (including patients), and to enable a two-way knowledge translation between information providers and consumers.MethodsContent validation steps were followed to develop the IAM4all questionnaire. The first version was based on a theoretical framework from information science, a critical literature review and prior work. Then, 16 laypersons were interviewed on their experience with online health information and specifically their impression of the IAM4all questionnaire. Based on the summaries and interpretations of interviews, questionnaire items were revised, added, and excluded, thus creating the second version of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a panel of 12 information specialists and 8 health researchers participated in an online survey to rate each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, representativeness, and specificity. The result of this expert panel contributed to the third, current, version of the questionnaire.ResultsThe current version of the IAM4all questionnaire is structured by four levels of outcomes of information seeking/receiving: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and health benefits. Following the interviews and the expert panel survey, 9 questionnaire items were confirmed as relevant, clear, representative, and specific. To improve readability and accessibility for users with a lower level of literacy, 19 items were reworded and all inconsistencies in using a passive or active voice have been solved. One item was removed due to redundancy. The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire contains 28 items.ConclusionsWe developed and content validated the IAM4all in partnership with information providers, information specialists, researchers and representatives of information consumers. This questionnaire can be integrated within electronic knowledge resources to stimulate users’ reflection (eg, their intention to use information). We claim that any organization (eg, publishers, community organizations, or patient associations), can evaluate and improve their online consumer health information from a consumers’ perspective using this method.

The content relevance of seven items was supported. For three items, revisions were needed. Interviews suggested one new item. This study has yielded a 2008 version of IAM.

The DSM-5 Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI) may become an important tool to help operationalize culture in the clinical realm. However, challenges exist in teaching its use to avoid the risk of stereotyping and oversimplification, which could result in misunderstanding and stigma. The aim of this article is to document whether the CFI can be taught using regular Interdisciplinary Case Discussion Seminars (ICDSs), proposed as continuing education in child mental health and as part of clinical rotations for new trainees. During a two-year evaluative research project, ICDSs were held monthly in three different primary care settings servicing recent immigrants in Montreal, Canada. ICDSs were recorded and analyzed to examine their effect on the cultural formulation process and focus groups were conducted to explore the subjective experience of the participant trainees and professionals. Results suggest that ICDSs are a helpful way to teach the use of the CFI. The group discussions helped participants to better capture the complexity of the cultural and social experience of the child and family by moving away from simple identity assignations, supporting an inquiry into structural dimensions, and considering stigma and inequality in their formulation. The multiple levels of diversity (individual, disciplinary, and interinstitutional) represented in the discussion groups helped clinicians to understand the cultural formulation as situated in a specific relational context and a particular moment and, in so doing, helped trainees to avoid cultural formulations that essentialize culture.