Background Younger women at higher-than-population-average risk for breast cancer may benefit from starting screening earlier than presently recommended by the guidelines. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) approach aims to improve the prevention of breast cancer through differential screening recommendations based on a personal risk estimate. In our study, we used deliberative stakeholder consultations to engage health professionals in an in-depth dialog to explore the feasibility of the proposed implementation strategies for this new personalized breast cancer screening approach. Methods Deliberative stakeholder consultation is a qualitative descriptive study design used to engage health professionals in the discussion, while the mediators play a more passive role. A purposeful sample of 11 health professionals (family physicians and genetic counselors) working in Montreal was used. The deliberations were organized in two phases, including small group deliberations according to the deliberants’ health profession and a mixed group deliberation combining participants from the small groups. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the transcripts by two coders to create the deliberative and analytic outputs. Quality of deliberations was assessed quantitatively using the de Vries method and qualitatively using participant observation. Results One of our key findings was that health professionals lacked understanding of the two steps of the screening approach: risk stratification “screening,” which is an evaluation for the level of risk and screening for disease. As part of this confusion, the main topic of concern was a justification of program implementation as a population-wide screening, based on their uncertainty that it will be beneficial for women with near-population risks. Despite the noted difficulties concerning implementation, health professionals acknowledged the substantial benefits of the proposed PERSPECTIVE program. Conclusions Our study was the first to evaluate the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and benefits of a new program for breast cancer risk stratification with the purpose of personalizing screening for disease. This new multi-step approach to screening requires more clarity in communication with health professionals. To implement and maintain effective screening, engagement of family physicians with other health professionals or even development of a centralized public health system may be needed.

In recent years, risk stratification has sparked interest as an innovative approach to disease screening and prevention. The approach effectively personalizes individual risk, opening the way to screening and prevention interventions that are adapted to subpopulations. The international perspective project, which is developing risk stratification for breast cancer, aims to support the integration of its screening approach into clinical practice through comprehensive tool-building. Policies and guidelines for risk stratification-unlike those for population screening programs, which are currently well regulated-are still under development. Indeed, the development of guidelines for risk stratification reflects the translational aspects of perspective.Here, we describe the risk stratification process that was devised in the context of perspective, and we then explain the consensus-based method used to develop recommendations for breast cancer screening and prevention in a risk-stratification approach. Lastly, we discuss how the recommendations might affect current screening policies.

Context: Depression is common in people with diabetes and is associated with poor glycemic control. Evidence suggests that certain antidepressants (AD) increase the risk of poor control. Few population-based studies have examined the impact of individual ADs on glycemic control. This study's objective is to measure the impact of Citalopram, Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in Canadian primary care patients with diabetes.Methods: A retrospective study of electronic medical records (EMR) from 115 primary care practices across Canada was undertaken. Data were obtained from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN). The sample population comprised 1,084 diabetic patients with 1,127 prescriptions of one of the five selected ADs and with baseline and post-exposure HbA1c measurements. Generalized linear mixed models were computed to estimate the effect of the ADs on HbA1c.Results: Mean HbA1c ratios for Amitriptyline, Venlafaxine, Trazodone and Escitalopram were all numerically lower than Citalopram. The confidence intervals included the minimum detectable effect, however the differences were not statistically significant. The lowest clinically relevant HbA1c ratios, relative to Citalopram, were found in patients prescribed Trazodone and Escitalopram. Accounting for the prescription of Trazodone for indications other than depression, this research suggests that Escitalopram may be safer than Citalopram for people with diabetes and depression, in terms of its effect on blood glucose.Conclusion: This study can inform future research examining the relationship between ADs and blood glucose and provides insight into the limitations pertaining to the use of health data in health research. Future research should seek to control for, across multiple time points: depression symptoms, depression severity, depression duration, weight, diabetes medication, tobacco and alcohol consumption and other medications with a known impact on blood glucose.

No abstract

IntroductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers).Methods and analysisThis review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs’ qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs’ decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015020558.