OBJECTIVE:To describe the solutions community health nurses (CHNs) identify to address health inequities during the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore what leadership competencies enable CHNs to enact these solutions.DESIGN:Online survey, distributed to all members of the Community Health Nurses of Canada and associated provincial and territorial networks.PARTICIPANTS:Inclusion criteria included all nurses who were working during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. A total of 245 responses were included in the analysis.MEASUREMENT:The survey included 25 open ended and fixed response questions. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the quantitative data. Framework Analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data.RESULTS:Solutions focused on advancing health equity and expanding community relationships and partnerships were identified as priorities. To enact these solutions system transformation, engaging others, and developing coalitions were identified as the main leadership competencies required by CHNs.CONCLUSION:Participants in this study clearly articulated structural and process solutions to address health inequities among priority populations during the pandemic. CHNs described with practice knowledge and confidence that solutions enacted in system transformation with community partners are necessary to advance health equity.

The core values of community health nursing practice are rooted in the social determinants of health, health equity and social justice. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, community health nurses (CHNs) witnessed first-hand the impact on individuals in situations of marginalization. This research inquiry explored how health inequities among client populations contributed to experiences of MD among CHNs in Canada during the pandemic. A total of 245 CHNs from across Canada participated in an online survey. Participants reported that during the pandemic individuals living in situations of marginalization were disproportionately impacted. CHNs were unable to provide the necessary health promotion interventions and experienced high levels of moral distress. The negative impact of the pandemic on individuals living in situations of marginalization illuminated the intersecting social and structural inequities that drive negative health outcomes and emphasized the need to adopt an equity focus for current and future pandemic planning, response, and recovery.

BACKGROUND:Multiple events that occurred in the United States in early 2020 prompted a widespread response to address racism that exists within systemic and social structures. Third-year psychiatric nursing students at a small Western Canadian university answered the call to action by initiating a process to address racism within clinical and educational settings in their faculty.METHODS:The researchers used collaborative autoethnography to examine the experience of students and faculty working collaboratively to create a Faculty of Health Studies antiracism action plan.RESULTS:The reflections of the student and faculty researchers highlighted three major themes: what inspired the work of creating an antiracism action plan, doing the work, and lessons learned.CONCLUSION:Engaging in this research provided an opportunity to critically reflect on the process of students and faculty working together in establishing an antiracism action plan. [J Nurs Educ. 2022;61(8):461-468.].

Background: Perinatal depression is well recognised as a mental health condition but < 50% of cases are identified in routine practice. A case-finding strategy using the Whooley questions is currently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of the Whooley questions and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) to identify perinatal depression. Design: A prospective diagnostic accuracy cohort study, with concurrent qualitative and economic evaluations. Setting: Maternity services in England. Participants: A total of 391 pregnant women. Main outcome measures: Women completed the Whooley questions, EPDS and a diagnostic reference standard (Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised) during pregnancy (20 weeks) and postnatally (3–4 months). Qualitative interviews were conducted with health professionals (HPs) and a subsample of women. Results: Diagnostic accuracy results: depression prevalence rates were 10.3% during pregnancy and 10.5% postnatally. The Whooley questions and EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 10) performed reasonably well, with comparable sensitivity [pregnancy: Whooley questions 85.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 70.2% to 94.3%; EPDS 82.5%, 95% CI 67.2% to 92.7%; postnatally: Whooley questions 85.7%, 95% CI 69.7% to 95.2%; EPDS 82.9%, 95% CI 66.4% to 93.4%] and specificity (pregnancy: Whooley questions 83.7%, 95% CI 79.4% to 87.4%; EPDS 86.6%, 95% CI 82.5% to 90.0%; postnatally: Whooley questions 80.6%, 95% CI 75.7% to 84.9%; EPDS 87.6%, 95% CI 83.3% to 91.1%). Diagnostic accuracy of the EPDS (cut-off point of ≥ 13) was poor at both time points (pregnancy: sensitivity 45%, 95% CI 29.3% to 61.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 93.0% to 97.6%; postnatally: sensitivity 62.9%, 95% CI 44.9% to 78.5%, and specificity 95.7%, 95% CI 92.7% to 97.7%). Qualitative evaluation: women and HPs were supportive of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression. The EPDS was preferred to the Whooley questions by women and HPs, mainly because of its ‘softer’ wording. Whooley question 1 was thought to be less acceptable, largely because of the terms ‘depressed’ and ‘hopeless’, leading to women not revealing their depressive symptoms. HPs identified a ‘patient-centred’ environment that focused on the mother and baby to promote discussion about mental health. Cost-effectiveness results: screening/case-finding using the Whooley questions or the EPDS alone was not the most cost-effective strategy. A two-stage strategy, ‘Whooley questions followed by the Patient Health Questionnaire’ (a measure assessing depression symptomatology), was the most cost-effective strategy in the range between £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in both the prenatal and postnatal decision models. Limitations: Perinatal depression diagnosis was not cross-referenced with women’s medical records so the proportion of new cases identified is unknown. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding strategies was not assessed as part of a randomised controlled trial. Conclusions: The Whooley questions and EPDS had acceptable sensitivity and specificity, but their use in practice might be limited by low predictive value and variation in their acceptability. A two-stage strategy was more cost-effective than single-stage strategies. Neither case-finding instrument met National Screening Committee criteria. Future work: The yield of screening/case-finding should be established with reference to health-care records. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening/case-finding for perinatal depression needs to be tested in a randomised controlled trial. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.