It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

We conducted a mixed-methods knowledge synthesis to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve caregivers' involvement in decision making with seniors, and to describe caregivers' experiences of decision making in the absence of interventions. We analyzed forty-nine qualitative, fourteen quantitative, and three mixed-methods studies. The qualitative studies indicated that caregivers had unmet needs for information, discussions of values and needs, and decision support, which led to negative sentiments after decision making. Our results indicate that there have been insufficient quantitative evaluations of interventions to involve caregivers in decision making with seniors and that the evaluations that do exist found few clinically significant effects. Elements of usual care that received positive evaluations were the availability of a decision coach and a supportive decision-making environment. Additional rigorously evaluated interventions are needed to help caregivers be more involved in decision making with seniors.

anadians need support in health-related decisionmaking.¹ More than half of Canadians experience decisional conflict after having made a complex health decision. 1 Many of the decisions patients face present multiple options, there is incomplete or conflicting evidence about possible outcomes, and expectations are often unrealistic. 1,2 Shared decision-making is a process whereby health care professionals and patients work jointly to make health care choices, considering best clinical evidence as well as patients' values and preferences. 3 It constitutes a key component of patient-centred care 4 and results in better health care choices, with demonstrated benefits and less practice variation. 5 Several reasons, such as time constraints, have been raised to explain a lack of implementation of shared decision-making in daily clinical practice. 6 However, most reasons are not evidence-based and are often based on misconceptions. 7 Although previous surveys and studies have reported on the level of shared decision-making in diverse health care settings, 8,9 we know little from a population-based perspective in Canada. Therefore, we aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions and to explore variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions and care settings.

BackgroundAccording to the 2015 report of the Joint United Nations Program on Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the prevalence rates of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) varied from 6 to 37% depending on the country, far exceeding the national prevalence rates. The present study on HIV infection among men who have sex with men in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted to describe the different sampling methods used to identify this target population and compare the prevalence rates of HIV infection among MSM to that of men in the general population.MethodsThe selection of studies to be included was carried out in the principal electronic databases. The 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) directives were used throughout the entire process. Bias evaluation was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. For each country, HIV prevalence values in both groups were calculated. A prevalence ratio was also calculated to compare the prevalence rates of the two groups.ResultsSeventeen articles were selected. Most of the studies (82.35%) used the Respondent-Driven Sampling method. The average prevalence rate was 17.81% (range: 3.7–33.46) for MSM and 6.15% (range: 0.5–19.7) for men in the general population. Overall, the human HIV prevalence rate was 4.94 times higher among MSM than among men in the general population (95%CI: 2.91–8.37). The western and central regions of Africa, as well as low-prevalence countries (prevalence < 1%), had very high prevalence ratios: 14.47 (95% CI: 9.90–21.13) and 28.49 (95% CI: 11.47–72.71), respectively.ConclusionMSM are at higher risk of HIV infection than men in the general population. The prevalence ratios are particularly elevated in West and Central Africa as well as in low-prevalence countries. Close monitoring of the situation, research and preventive measures are essential to control the epidemic amongst MSM.

BackgroundLittle is known about the decision-making experiences of seniors and informal caregivers facing decisions about seniors’ housing decisions when objective decision making measures are used.ObjectivesTo report on seniors’ and caregivers’ experiences of housing decisions.DesignA cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach supplemented by qualitative data.SettingSixteen health jurisdictions providing home care services, Quebec province, Canada.ParticipantsTwo separate samples of seniors aged ≥ 65 years and informal caregivers of cognitively impaired seniors who had made a decision about housing.MeasurementsInformation on preferred choice and actual choice about housing, role assumed in the decision, decisional conflict and decision regret was obtained through closed-ended questionnaires. Research assistants paraphrased participants’ narratives about their decision-making experiences and made other observations in standardized logbooks.ResultsThirty-one seniors (median age: 85.5 years) and 48 caregivers (median age: 65.1 years) were recruited. Both seniors and caregivers preferred that the senior stay at home (64.5% and 71.7% respectively). Staying home was the actual choice for only 32.2% of participating seniors and 36.2% of the seniors cared for by the participating caregivers. Overall, 93% seniors and 71% caregivers reported taking an active or collaborative role in the decision-making process. The median decisional conflict score was 23/100 for seniors and 30/100 for caregivers. The median decision regret score was the same for both (10/100). Qualitative analysis revealed that the housing decision was influenced by factors such as seniors’ health and safety concerns and caregivers’ burden of care. Some caregivers felt sad and guilty when the decision did not match the senior’s preference.ConclusionThe actual housing decision made for seniors frequently did not match their preferred housing option. Advanced care planning regarding housing and better decision support are needed for these difficult decisions.

Policy-makers worldwide are increasingly interested in scaling up evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to larger populations, and implementation scientists are developing frameworks and methodologies for achieving this. But scaling-up does not always produce the desired results. Why not? We aimed to enhance awareness of the various pitfalls to be anticipated when planning scale-up. In lower-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the scale-up of health programs to prevent or respond to outbreaks of communicable diseases has been occurring for many decades. In high-income countries, there is new interest in the scaling up of interventions that address communicable and non-communicable diseases alike. We scanned the literature worldwide on problems encountered when implementing scale-up plans revealed a number of potential pitfalls that we discuss in this paper. We identified and discussed the following six major pitfalls of scaling-up EBIs: 1) the cost-effectiveness estimation pitfall, i.e. accurate cost-effectiveness estimates about real-world implementation are almost impossible, making predictions of economies of scale unreliable; 2) the health inequities pitfall, i.e. some people will necessarily be left out and therefore not benefit from the scaled-up EBIs; 3) the scaled-up harm pitfall, i.e. the harms as well as the benefits may be amplified by the scaling-up; 4) the ethical pitfall, i.e. informed consent may be a challenge on a grander scale; 5) the top-down pitfall, i.e. the needs, preferences and culture of end-users may be forgotten when scale-up is directed from above; and 6) the contextual pitfall, i.e. it may not be possible to adapt the EBIs to every context. If its pitfalls are addressed head on, scaling-up may be a powerful process for translating research data into practical improvements in healthcare in both LMICs and high-income countries, ensuring that more people benefit from EBIs.

Background: Despite growing recognition that shared decision making (SDM) is cen-

Background: DOLCE (Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers) was a post-intervention clustered randomised trial (cRT) to assess the effect of training home care teams on interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). Alongside the cRT, we sought to monitor healthcare providers' level of behavioural intention to engage in an IP-SDM approach and to identify factors associated with this intention. Methods: We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in the province of Quebec, Canada, one each at cRT entry and exit. Healthcare providers (e.g. nurses, occupational therapists and social workers) in the 16 participating intervention and control sites self-completed an identical paper-based questionnaire at entry and exit. Informed by the Integrated model for explaining healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour by Godin et al. (2008), we assessed their behavioural intention to engage in IP-SDM to support older adults and caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment to make health-related housing decisions. We also assessed psychosocial variables underlying their behavioural intention and collected sociodemographic data. We used descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to account for clustering.