Susie Gagnon | Université Laval (original) (raw)

Papers by Susie Gagnon

JMIR Research Protocols, 2014

Little is known about factors influencing professionals' use of wikis.

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2010

Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) he... more Rationale, aims and objectives Following increased interest in having inter-professional (IP) health care teams engage patients in decision making, we developed a conceptual model for an IP approach to shared decision making (SDM) in primary care. We assessed the validity of the model with stakeholders in Canada.Methods In 15 individual interviews and 7 group interviews with 79 stakeholders, we asked them to: (1) propose changes to the IP-SDM model; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to the model's implementation in clinical practice; and (3) assess the model using a theory appraisal questionnaire. We performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts and a descriptive analysis of the questionnaires.Results Stakeholders suggested placing the patient at its centre; extending the concept of family to include significant others; clarifying outcomes; highlighting the concept of time; merging the micro, meso and macro levels in one figure; and recognizing the influence of the environment and emotions. The most common barriers identified were time constraints, insufficient resources and an imbalance of power among health professionals. The most common facilitators were education and training in inter-professionalism and SDM, motivation to achieve an IP approach to SDM, and mutual knowledge and understanding of disciplinary roles. Most stakeholders considered that the concepts and relationships between the concepts were clear and rated the model as logical, testable, having clear schematic representation, and being relevant to inter-professional collaboration, SDM and primary care.Conclusions Stakeholders validated the new IP-SDM model for primary care settings and proposed few modifications. Future research should assess if the model helps implement SDM in IP clinical practice.

Prenatal diagnosis, 2010

ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which family physicians (FPs) involve women in decisions about p... more ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which family physicians (FPs) involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome.To assess the extent to which family physicians (FPs) involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome.MethodsBased on transcripts of consultations between 41 FPs and 128 women, two raters independently assessed clinician's efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome using the French-language version of OPTION. Descriptive statistics of OPTION scores were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by performing a principal factor analysis and by measuring association with consultation duration and FPs sociodemograhics. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and inter-rater reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient.Based on transcripts of consultations between 41 FPs and 128 women, two raters independently assessed clinician's efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome using the French-language version of OPTION. Descriptive statistics of OPTION scores were calculated. Construct validity was assessed by performing a principal factor analysis and by measuring association with consultation duration and FPs sociodemograhics. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and inter-rater reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient.ResultsThe overall mean OPTION score was low: 19 ± 7 (range = 0 [no involvement] to 100 [high involvement]). One factor accounted for 80% of the variance. Both internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73; ICC = 0.76). OPTION scores were lower for residents than for licensed FPs (17 ± 5 vs 21 ± 4; p = 0.02) and were positively associated with duration of consultation (r = 0.56; p < 0.001).The overall mean OPTION score was low: 19 ± 7 (range = 0 [no involvement] to 100 [high involvement]). One factor accounted for 80% of the variance. Both internal consistency and inter-rater reliability were very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.73; ICC = 0.76). OPTION scores were lower for residents than for licensed FPs (17 ± 5 vs 21 ± 4; p = 0.02) and were positively associated with duration of consultation (r = 0.56; p < 0.001).ConclusionBased on the French-language version of OPTION, which showed satisfactory psychometric properties, FPs studied put minimal efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Based on the French-language version of OPTION, which showed satisfactory psychometric properties, FPs studied put minimal efforts to involve women in decisions about prenatal screening for Down syndrome. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Canadian family physician Médecin de famille canadien, 2010

To assess the reliability and validity of the 4-item SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information... more To assess the reliability and validity of the 4-item SURE (Sure of myself; Understand information; Risk-benefit ratio; Encouragement) screening test for decisional conflict in patients. Cross-sectional study. Four family medicine groups in Quebec and 1 rural academic medical centre in New Hampshire. One hundred twenty-three French-speaking pregnant women considering prenatal screening for Down syndrome and 1474 English-speaking patients referred to watch condition-specific video decision aids. Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of SURE. A factorial analysis was performed to assess its unidimensionality. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between SURE and the Decisional Conflict Scale to assess concurrent validation. A t test procedure comparing the SURE scores of patients who had made decisions with the scores of those who had not was used to assess construct validation. Among the 123 French-speaking pregnant women, 105 (85%) scored 4 out of 4 (no decisional conflict); 10 (8%) scored 3 (&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;or= 3 indicates decisional conflict); 7 (6%) scored 2; and 1 (1%) scored 1. Among the 1474 English-speaking treatment-option patients, 981 (67%) scored 4 out of 4; 272 (18%) scored 3; 147 (10%) scored 2; 54 (4%) scored 1; and 20 (1%) scored 0. The reliability of SURE was moderate (Cronbach alpha of 0.54 in French-speaking pregnant women and 0.65 in treatment-option patients). In the group of pregnant women, 2 factors accounted for 72% of the variance. In the treatment-option group, 1 factor accounted for 49% of the variance. In the group of pregnant women, SURE correlated negatively with the Decisional Conflict Scale (r = -0.46; P &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt; .0001); and in the group of treatment-option patients, it discriminated between those who had made a choice for a treatment and those who had not (P &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt; .0001). The SURE screening test shows promise for screening for decisional conflict in both French- and English-speaking patients; however, future studies should assess its performance in a broader group of patients.

Prenatal diagnosis, 2011

ObjectiveTo assess the willingness of women and their family physicians (FPs) to engage in shared... more ObjectiveTo assess the willingness of women and their family physicians (FPs) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM) as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening and the factors that might influence their willingness to do so.To assess the willingness of women and their family physicians (FPs) to engage in shared decision-making (SDM) as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening and the factors that might influence their willingness to do so.MethodsWe conducted a survey of participants in Québec City, Canada, using the theory of planned behavior. We used a general linear model and multilevel approach that took the fact that some women consulted the same FP into account.We conducted a survey of participants in Québec City, Canada, using the theory of planned behavior. We used a general linear model and multilevel approach that took the fact that some women consulted the same FP into account.ResultsThis study comprised 109 pregnant women and 41 FPs. On a scale of − 3 to + 3, the pregnant women's and FPs' response scores were, respectively, 2.11 ± 1.38 and 2.66 ± 0.40. In women, attitude, significant others, self-efficacy, perceived moral correctness, and their FP's attitude influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. However, women without a post-secondary education were less likely to engage in SDM than women with a post-secondary education, mostly because the former lacked a sense of self-efficacy. In FPs, only attitude and significant others influenced their willingness to engage in SDM.This study comprised 109 pregnant women and 41 FPs. On a scale of − 3 to + 3, the pregnant women's and FPs' response scores were, respectively, 2.11 ± 1.38 and 2.66 ± 0.40. In women, attitude, significant others, self-efficacy, perceived moral correctness, and their FP's attitude influenced their willingness to engage in SDM. However, women without a post-secondary education were less likely to engage in SDM than women with a post-secondary education, mostly because the former lacked a sense of self-efficacy. In FPs, only attitude and significant others influenced their willingness to engage in SDM.ConclusionOverall, the women and their FPs wished to engage in SDM as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening. Only a few factors influenced this desire which therefore may be modifiable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Overall, the women and their FPs wished to engage in SDM as regards prenatal Down-syndrome screening. Only a few factors influenced this desire which therefore may be modifiable. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2011

Journal of medical Internet research, 2013

The rapid rise in the use of collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis, Google Documents, and... more The rapid rise in the use of collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis, Google Documents, and Google Knol) has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. While researchers have conducted systematic reviews on a range of software-based information and communication technologies as well as other social media (eg, virtual communities of practice, virtual peer-to-peer communities, and electronic support groups), none have reviewed collaborative writing applications in the medical sector. The overarching goal of this project is to explore the depth and breadth of evidence for the use of collaborative writing applications in health care. Thus, the purposes of this scoping review will be to (1) map the literature on collaborative writing applications; (2) compare the applications&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; features; (3) describe the evidence of each application&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s positive and negative effects as a KT intervention in health care; (4) inventory and describe the barriers and facilitators that affect the applications&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; use; and (5) produce an action plan and a research agenda. A six-stage framework for scoping reviews will be used: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies within the selected databases (using the EPPI-Reviewer software to classify the studies); (3) selecting studies (an iterative process in which two reviewers search the literature, refine the search strategy, and review articles for inclusion); (4) charting the data (using EPPI-Reviewer&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39;s data-charting form); (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results (performing a descriptive, numerical, and interpretive synthesis); and (6) consulting knowledge users during three planned meetings. Since this scoping review concerns the use of collaborative writing applications as KT interventions in health care, we will use the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework to describe and compare the various studies and collaborative writing projects we find. In addition to guiding the use of collaborative writing applications in health care, this scoping review will advance the science of KT by testing tools that could be used to evaluate other social media. We also expect to identify areas that require further systematic reviews and primary research and to produce a highly relevant research agenda that explores and leverages the potential of collaborative writing software. To date, this is the first study to use the KTA framework to study the role collaborative writing applications in KT, and the first to involve three national and international institutional knowledge users as part of the research process.

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators t... more Reviewers independently extracted data on key components of PPIPs and barriers and facilitators to their operation. Data synthesis. Over half of the studies were published after 2002, and more than half originated from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany. CPGs that involved patients and the public addressed a variety of health problems, especially mental health and cancer. The most frequently cited objective for using PPIPs in developing CPGs was to incorporate patients&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;#39; values or perspectives in CPG recommendations. Patients and their families and caregivers were the parties most often involved. used to recruit PPIP participants included soliciting through patient/public organizations, sending invitations, and receiving referrals and recruits from clinicians. Patients and the public most often participated by taking part in a CPG working group, workshop, meeting, seminar, literature review, or consultation such as a focus group, individual interview, or survey. Patients and the public principally helped formulate recommendations and revise drafts. Limitations. The authors did not contact the authors of the studies. This literature review provides an extensive knowledge base for making PPIPs more effective when developing and implementing CPGs. More research is needed to assess the impact of PPIPs and resources they require.