Conectar
by Sabrina Lessard, Annie Bernatchez, Houda Garrach, Mélanie Couture, Claire Godard-Sebillotte, Sarita Israel, Rym Zakaria
ObjectiveThis project aims to gain a thoroughly understanding of the characteristics and experiences of psychological mistreatment among older adults, acknowledging the diversity within this population. It also seeks to identify clinical tools and practices for its detection and intervention. While there is extensive literature on mistreatment of older adults, specific studies focusing on psychological aspects and intersecting social and identity dimensions are scarce. The findings will provide valuable insights for policymakers and healthcare professionals, helping to shape interventions and policies aimed at countering mistreatment in the ageing population.
IntroductionPsychological mistreatment involves a range of behaviors, expressions, and gestures—or the lack of appropriate actions—that negatively impact an individual's health and dignity. Often subtle and difficult to detect, this type of mistreatment is prevalent and can coexist with other types of abuse. Examination of psychological mistreatment, shaped by various social and identity dimensions, is lacking in current research, particularly regarding how it is experienced by older adults. This scoping review seeks to map the current knowledge on psychological mistreatment of older adults, while highlighting gaps and future directions for research.
Inclusion criteriaThis scoping review will encompass studies that explore the characteristics and experiences of psychological mistreatment among older adults, including their experiences and those of perpetrators and witnesses. It will also identify clinical tools and practices for the detection and intervention of psychological mistreatment in this population.
MethodA scoping review will be undertaken by a multidisciplinary team, examining studies from post-2010, sourced from both bibliographic databases and grey literature, available in English or French. Employing an intersectional framework, the review will use Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) to examine how different forms of discrimination intersect and shape experiences of mistreatment. That is, this approach will help explore how social and identity dimensions—including gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health conditions—shape the experiences and manifestations of psychological mistreatment.
Inhaled anaesthetics can be used in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients to provide sedation. This approach to sedation potentially improves patient and health system outcomes, but further supportive evidence is needed. The objective of the SAVE-ICU clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of inhaled versus intravenous sedation in ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.
SAVE-ICU is a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial conducted in 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients include mechanically ventilated and sedated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19 or non-COVID causes with PaO2/FIO2 ratio 12 hour). A hierarchy of outcomes was identified at the time of trial design, as the trial was launched during the COVID-19 pandemic when study drug shortages, staffing challenges and healthcare system pressures were prevalent and there was a requirement for rapid evidence generation and implementation on this topic. The primary outcome and highest in the hierarchy is hospital mortality (requiring 758 participants). Secondary and lower hierarchical outcomes are ventilator-free days at day 30 (200 patients), quality of life at 3 months (144 participants) and ICU-free days at day 30 (128 participants). Additional secondary outcomes include median daily oxygenation at day 3 (PaO2/FIO2 ratio), need for adjunctive acute respiratory distress syndrome therapies (prone positioning, inhaled nitric oxide, paralysis with a neuromuscular blocking agent and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) during ICU stay, days alive and free from delirium and coma at day 14, hospital-free days at day 60 and disability score at 3 months and 12 months after enrolment.
The protocol was approved by all hospital ethics committees and by Health Canada. Informed consent will be obtained from substitute decision makers or deferred consent (as permitted by site ethics board). Trial findings will be shared at the end of the study using peer-review publications, conference presentations and social media as part of the trial knowledge translation plan.
Type 1 diabetes (T1D) demands self-management skills, knowledge and confidence to prevent medical complications. Adolescents living with T1D have distinct developmental challenges resulting in a worsening in glycaemic stability, irregular care and an increased risk for complications all while transitioning to adult healthcare. Age-specific online platforms could facilitate transition by fostering self-management education and support. The Support online self-guided training platform has been shown to increase the confidence of adults with T1D in managing their glycaemia. We aim to test the effectiveness of Support-t (ie, adapted for youth), compared with usual care, in improving haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and to understand the context of its implementation.
We will conduct a multisite, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled, parallel group, two-arm, superiority trial, evaluating effectiveness and implementation of Support-t versus usual care in 200 adolescents (14–16 years old) living with T1D. The active arm will have an 18-month access to Support-t, and their healthcare team will be trained on the platform’s content. The control arm will receive usual care. The primary outcome is HbA1c at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include self-efficacy for diabetes self-management, transition readiness, diabetes-specific quality of life, diabetes distress, continuous glucose monitoring metrics, number of severe hypoglycaemic events, diabetic ketoacidosis, T1D-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations as well as engagement and satisfaction. A subgroup of participants in the active arm and of healthcare providers will be interviewed assessing barriers, facilitators, engagement and fidelity of the intervention. Primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat. The difference in mean HbA1c at 18 months (with a 95% CI) will be calculated between both arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis is also planned.
December 8, 2024 version of the protocol was approved by the McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board (MP-37-2024-9734). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and patient-partners’ network.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05910840).
FreshRSS 