Health information technology (HIT), while designed to improve practice efficiency and patient care, can contribute to physician burnout and impact health care delivery. This study examines the contribution of specific HIT functions to alleviate and predict physician burnout within the differing health landscapes of Ontario (ON) and Nova Scotia (NS), with particular attention to administrative burdens, interoperability and system integration and clinician perceptions of HIT. We designed a mixed methods study and developed a questionnaire to identify HIT characteristics that contribute to, alleviate, and predict clinician burnout in Ontario (ON) and Nova Scotia (NS). The survey was distributed February to April of 2024. Subgroup differences in HIT-related burnout were analysed and qualitative coding of the open-text questions generated critical insights. Despite differences in the samples, the HIT uses, and care models, common experiences were apparent. “Managing communications related to patient care” and “inputting data into your EMR” were among both samples’ top three administrative burdens. While “logging in and out of technology platforms” ranked higher in NS, the related theme of integration and interoperability was prominent in both samples. Perceptions of HIT were associated with self-reported burnout score. While physicians see the advantages of HIT in patient care, overwhelming documentation burdens and disjointedness across data platforms contribute to their burnout. Greater ongoing involvement by end users in the design, implementation and use, along with improved standardization and interoperability would reduce these burdens while maintaining the benefits of digital health systems.

Vaccine decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic led to considerable division in public trust with regards to accepting or rejecting the vaccine. While a body of literature exists which highlights stigma towards vaccine-refusing parents, the impact of stigmatization and its related impact on future vaccine hesitancy and acceptance on individuals who received the COVID-19 vaccine is underexplored. This study aimed to document the attributions of stigma towards individuals who refused a COVID-19 vaccine and subsequently caught or died from the virus through their public shaming on the r/HermanCainAward subreddit. Data were sourced through pushshift.io, where they were sorted by the Computational Thematic Analysis Toolkit into topics. Three topics were chosen for thematic analysis. Though the thematic analysis informed by Link and Phelan's conceptualization of stigma (2006), this study concluded that subjects were labeled and stereotyped using undesirable characteristics, often characteristics that are also stigmatized. Further, commenters anticipated and celebrated deaths as they occurred. These findings will inform the development of an interview guide to determine if these stereotypes and labels have led to perceived status loss and discrimination among people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine, along with understanding the impact of this stigmatization on their behaviour and intention to vaccinate.

CONTEXT:Scholarship on political economy of vaccines in the COVID-19 era has focused on mRNA. Yet Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) vaccine based on recombinant adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) was effective against COVID-19, widely distributed, and earned billions in revenue. The story of J&J's "proprietary" Ad26-based, "AdVac"-branded vaccine "platform" spans decades and multiple pathogens besides SARS-CoV-2, including HIV and ebolavirus. The AdVac "platform" exemplifies the role of the "platform" in modern vaccine development. Our work asks: what is a vaccine "platform"? What role do platforms play in "assetization" of science? METHODS:We conducted a qualitative study of the history of AdVac, triangulating patents, scientific literature, other documentation, and interviews with key scientists. We constructed a timeline of the three phases of the "platform's" life: early promise, mixed success driven by public investment, then disappointment and divestment. FINDINGS:We distinguish "platforms" from vectors by incorporating analysis of the social, political, and economic context in which vectors operate. "Platform thinking" by scientists in industry, academia, and government can drive claims that certain vectors have all-purpose utility while overlooking other components as mere details. When the Ad26 vector's totalizing potential as a "platform" lost credibility, J&J divested from vaccine research, leaving important scientific questions unanswered and technical resources unshared. CONCLUSIONS:Scientists must recognize platform thinking to prevent it from unduly shaping the trajectory of biomedical research. Political and scientific leaders should invest in public-sector capacity so that promising technologies can be brought to the public without need for an industry partner in every instance.

This article investigates Canada's health product regulatory authority, Health Canada (HC), and other major national regulators' responses to COVID-19. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with HC officials and secondary data on the activities of other major regulators, including the European Medicines Agency, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, and the United States Food and Drug Administration, we show that during COVID-19 product evaluations, HC and other regulatory authorities adopted a strategy of increased collaboration and competition with one another. We term this strategy a pattern of 'competitive interdependence.' Using a critical political economy (CPE) approach, we argue that regulatory authorities employed the strategy to mediate increased structural tensions between capitalism and democracy engrained in health product regulation. The CPE approach, informing our analysis of competitive interdependence, highlights the dialectical nature of health product regulation. In light of our data, we demonstrate the regulators' role in upholding capitalism at both the national and global levels while also organizing popular consent by generating public trust in the safety and efficacy of medicines.

ObjectiveSuccessful clinical conversations about vaccination in pregnancy (pertussis, COVID-19, and influenza) are key to improving low uptake rates of both vaccination in pregnancy and infancy. The purpose of this study was to understand Canadian perinatal care providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices around vaccination in pregnancy.MethodsQualitative interviews with 49 perinatal care providers (nurse practitioner, general practitioner, registered nurse, registered midwife, obstetrician-gynecologist, and family physicians) in 6 of 13 provinces and territories were deductively coded using directed content analysis [1] and analyzed according to key themes.ResultsParticipants detailed their professional training and experiences, patient community demographics, knowledge of vaccines, views and beliefs about vaccination in pregnancy, and attitudes about vaccine counselling. Providers generally described having a good range of information sources to keep vaccine knowledge up to date. Some providers lacked the necessary logistical setups to administer vaccines within their practice. Responses suggest diverging approaches to vaccine counselling. With merely hesitant patients, some opted to dig in and have more in-depth discussions, while others felt the likelihood of persuading an outright vaccine-refusing patient to vaccinate was too low to be worthwhile.ConclusionProvider knowledge, attitudes, and practices around vaccination varied by professional background. To support perinatal providers’ knowledge and practices, clinical guidelines should detail the importance of vaccination relative to other care priorities, emphasize the positive impact of engaging hesitant patients in vaccine counselling.

Vaccines are not the only public health tool, but they are critical in routine and emergency settings. Achieving optimal vaccination rates requires timely access to vaccines. However, we have persistently failed to secure, distribute, and administer vaccines in a timely, effective, and equitable manner despite an enduring rhetoric of global health equity.

Focusing on how disease, health and vaccine research take on different forms, meanings and interpretations in diverse contexts, we examine the use of rhetoric to recruit people living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa for an Ebola vaccine clinical trial. Conducted after the West African Ebola outbreak in a country that had not been affected by Ebola, the urgency, relevance and materiality of disease, health and biomedical research takes on different shapes, meanings and understandings. The limitations of multilateral initiatives to address inequalities in associated healthcare and access to essential medicines and vaccines highlight the tensions created when neither local researchers nor patient communities have been involved in the design or planning of the trial, and when the pathologies targeted by experimental technologies are either inappropriate for the people they are aimed at, or unfold without the knowledge of a social consensus. By deciphering the metaphorical discourse on an Ebola vaccine candidate and the erasure of a viral ontology from the hybrid technology to which it gives rise, we understand that the discourse of clinic staff makes it possible to establish a scientific truth in the service of instrumental productivity: manufacturing consent and recruiting arms for vaccine shots. In this article, we show that the closure of biomedicine to an esoteric discourse reflects the weakness of science in communicating what it actually does and the techniques it produces. It also addresses the failure of community engagement in the field of emerging infectious diseases.

Background: Analysing the Canadian government’s efforts to support the development of COVID-19 "medical countermeasures" (MCMs), this article seeks insights into political economy as a driver of pandemic response. We explore whether Canadian public funding policy during the pandemic involved departures from established practices of financialisation in biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D), including the dominance of private sector involvement in an intellectual property (IP) intensive approach to innovation underscoring profit, and governance opacity. Methods: We interrogate public funding for MCMs by analyzing how much the Government of Canada (GoC) spent, how those funds were allocated, on what terms, and to whom. We identify the funding institutions, and the funds awarded between February 10, 2020, and March 31, 2021, to support the research, development, and manufacturing of MCMs, including diagnostics, vaccines, therapeutics, and information about clinical management and virus transmission. To collect these data, we conducted searches on the Internet, public data repositories, and filed several requests under the Access to Information Act (1985). Subsequently, we carried out a document-based analysis of electronically accessible research contracts, proposals, grant calls, and policy announcements. Results: The GoC announced CAD$ 1.4 billion for research, development and manufacturing of COVID-19 MCMs. Fully 68% (CAD$ 959 million) of the announced public funding was channelled to investment in private sector firms. Canadian public funding showed a consistent focus on early and late stage development of COVID-19 MCMs and the expansion of biopharmaceutical manufacturing capacity. Assessing whether Canada’s investments into developing COVID-19 MCMs safeguard affordable and transparent access to the products of publicly funded research, we found that access policies on IP management, sharing of clinical data, affordability and availability were not systematic, consistent, or transparent, and few, if any, mechanisms ensured long-term sustainability. Conclusion: Beyond incremental change in policy goals, such as public investment in domestic biomanufacturing, the features of Canadian public policies endorsing financialization in the biopharmaceutical sector remained largely unchanged during the pandemic.

In Canada, the first COVID-19 vaccine was approved for use in December 2020, marking the beginning of a large vaccination campaign. The campaign was not only unprecedented in terms of reach, but also with regards to the amount of information about vaccines that circulated in traditional and social media. This study's aim was to describe COVID-19 vaccine related discourses in Canada through an analysis of editorial cartoons. We collected 2172 cartoons about COVID-19 published between January 2020 and August 2022 in Canadian newspapers. These cartoons were downloaded and a first thematic analysis was conducted using the WHO-EPIWIN taxonomy (cause, illness, treatment, interventions, and information). From this, 389 cartoons related to COVID-19 vaccines were identified under the treatment category. These were subjected to a second thematic analysis to assess main themes (e.g., vaccine development, campaign progress, etc.), characters featured (e.g., politicians, public figures, public) and position with respect to vaccine (favorable, unfavorable, neutral). Six main themes emerged: Research and development of vaccines; Management of the vaccination campaign; Perceptions of and experiences with vaccination services; Measures and incentives to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake; Criticism of the unvaccinated; and Effectiveness of vaccination. Our analysis revealed a shift in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination from high hopes to disenchantment, which may reflect some vaccine fatigue. In the future, public health authorities could face some challenges in maintaining confidence and high COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Early in COVID-19 vaccine rollout, expert recommendations about vaccination while pregnant and breastfeeding changed rapidly. This paper addresses the (re)production of gendered power relations in these expert discourses and recommendations in Canada. We collected texts about COVID-19 vaccine use in pregnancy (N ​= ​52) that Canadian health organizations (e.g., professional societies, advisory groups, health authorities) and vaccine manufacturers made publicly available online. A discourse analysis was undertaken to investigate intertextuality (relations between texts), social construction (incorporation of assumptions about gender), and contradictions between and within texts.National expert recommendations varied in stating COVID-19 vaccines are recommended, should be offered, or may be offered, while manufacturer texts consistently stated there was no evidence. Provincial and territorial texts reproduced discrepancies between the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommendations, including that COVID-19 vaccines should be versus may be offered in pregnancy. Our findings suggest gaps in data and discrepant COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, eligibility, and messaging limit guidance regarding vaccination in pregnancy. We argue that these discrepancies magnified the already common practice of deferring responsibility for the uncertainties of vaccination in pregnancy onto parents and healthcare providers. The deferral of responsibility could be reduced by harmonizing recommendations, regularly updating texts that describe evidence and recommendations, and prioritizing research into disease burden, vaccine safety, and efficacy before vaccine rollout.

Background Negative information about vaccines that spreads online may contribute to parents’ vaccine hesitancy or refusal. Studies have shown that false claims about vaccines that use emotive personal narratives are more likely to be shared and engaged with on social media than factual evidence-based public health messages. The aim of this study was to explore parents’ views regarding the use of positive narratives to promote childhood vaccination. Methods We identified three ∼4-minute video narratives from social media that counter frequent parental concerns about childhood vaccination: parents and informed decision-making (online misinformation about vaccines); a paediatrician’s clinical experience with vaccine-preventable diseases (prevention of still existing diseases); and a mother’s experience with vaccine-preventable disease (risks of the disease). Focus group discussions were held with parents of children aged 0 to 5 years to assess their views on these three narratives and their general opinion on the use of narratives as a vaccine promotion intervention. Results Four focus groups discussions were virtually held with 15 parents in December 2021. In general, parents trusted both health care provider’s and parent’s narratives, but participants identified more with stories having a parent as the main character. Both narratives featuring personal stories with vaccine-preventable diseases were preferred by parents, while the story about informed decision-making was perceived as less influential. Parents expressed the need for reliable and nuanced information about vaccines and diseases and felt that a short video format featuring a story was an efficient vaccine promotion intervention. However, many mentioned that they generally are not watching such videos while navigating the Web. Conclusion While vaccine-critical stories are widely shared online, evidence on how best public health could counter these messages remains scarce. The use of narratives to promote vaccination was well-perceived by parents. Future studies are needed to assess reach and impact of such an intervention.

Canadians and Quebecers increasingly consult complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners in parallel with biomedical providers. The close relationship between vaccine hesitancy and CAM use remains under explored in Western countries. We present the results of a qualitative study conducted among one of Quebec's most used CAM approaches: naturopathy. Using Boholm and Corvellec's relational theory of risk to illustrate naturopaths' construction of vaccination as an "object of risk", we describe how the health representations of 30 Quebec naturopath interviewees are associated with the ways they perceived the risks of infectious diseases and vaccination. Our findings illustrate how Quebec naturopaths' view the body as "at risk" from the possible harmful effects of vaccines. For these naturopaths, the body is a site, a "terrain", where homeostasis must continually be preserved, and needs to be protected from risks such as vaccines-which were seen as far riskier than infectious diseases-through natural means. Such views are often perceived as unscientific or even irrational by public health researchers. Our study highlights that naturopaths' attitudes towards vaccination are perfectly aligned with the epistemological tenets of their risk representations and conceptions of health.

Health care providers' recommendations can play an important role in individuals' vaccination decisions. Despite being one of the most popular complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), naturopathy is understudied in relation to vaccination decisions. We sought to address this gap through this study of vaccination perspectives of naturopathy practitioners in the province of Quebec, Canada. We conducted in-depth interviews with 30 naturopaths. Thematic analysis was conducted. Main themes were developed deductively (i.e., based on prior literature) and expanded through inductive coding of the data. Participants noted that they discuss vaccination in their practice, but only when clients asked questions or wanted advice. Naturopaths described refraining from explicitly recommending for or against vaccination. Instead, they focus on empowering their clients to make their own informed decision regarding vaccination. Most participants noted that they direct clients towards sources of information so that clients could decide for themselves, but some mentioned they discussed with clients what they considered to be risks associated with vaccination, as well as its benefits. These discussions were framed through a personalized and individual approach with clients.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents not only the spread of a highly contagious and potentially fatal virus, but also an outbreak of theories, rumors, discourses and representations trying to make sense of a crisis. In this article, we explore the issue of blame and stigma in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. We do so by studying editorial cartoons published about COVID-19 in ten mainstream Canadian newspapers between January 2020 and March 2021. We identified 203 editorial cartoons that highlight common discourses which blame or stigmatize specific groups of people for the origin or transmission of COVID-19, or for their behavior during the pandemic. The cartoons focused on four groups: 1) people of Chinese origin or descent and of other national/geographic provenance (Americans, Canadians from specific provinces, urban residents); 2) international travelers; 3) people who do not respect the preventive measures to contain the pandemic; and 4) people who question or criticize the scientific discourses about COVID-19. Our analysis revealed an "othering process" common in times of pandemic. Our analysis of editorial cartoons in Canada also uncovered a moralization around the respect of the counter measures against COVID-19. These editorial cartoons largely divide the population into two groups: 1) "virtuous" people who are "selfless" and "smart" and who respect the public health preventive measures; 2) those who are "immoral", "self-centered", "silly" and even "stupid", who do not respect the recommended measures to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. While negatively portraying these individuals may help promote adherence to the recommended measures, it also can exacerbate polarization. Analyzing editorial cartoons can be a useful approach to rapidly gather information on attitudes and feelings in the public at a specific time and place.

BACKGROUND In Canada, vaccination that protects against pertussis and influenza is recommended in every pregnancy, but uptake remains low. Communicating the risks and benefits of vaccination is key to clinical conversations about vaccination, which may influence the uptake of pregnancy and subsequent infant vaccines. Canadian midwives use an informed choice model of care, which is distinct from informed consent and prioritizes client autonomy in decision-making. METHODS Using institutional ethnography, which treats lived experience as expertise, we aimed to understand how Canadian midwives, governed by intersecting professional standards and regulations, navigate vaccine discussions with their clients. We conducted interviews with individuals involved in midwifery training, regulation, and continuing education, as well as key public health professionals with expertise in immunization training. Following the phases of thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke, data were analyzed holistically, emergent themes identified, and coding categories developed. RESULTS Two types of confidence emerged as important to midwives' ability to conduct a thoroughly informed choice discussion about vaccines: confidence in vaccination itself (vaccine confidence), and confidence in vaccine knowledge and counseling skills (vaccine counseling confidence). A deferred or shortened vaccine discussion could be the result of either vaccine hesitancy or counseling hesitancy. DISCUSSION Currently, available clinical communication tools and recommended techniques for addressing vaccine hesitancy do not always adapt well to the needs of midwives working to support clients' informed choice decisions. Our findings suggest that Canadian midwives require more and clearer resources on both the risks and benefits of vaccination in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE:To explore Nova Scotian experiences, barriers, and facilitators associated with pandemic public health measures (PHM), including COVID-19 vaccination.METHODS:We conducted semi-structured, individual interviews with Nova Scotians between May and August 2021, during the third wave of COVID-19 cases and provincial lockdown. Participants were recruited across the province from three sectors: decision makers, community leaders, and community members using purposive and snowball sampling. Direct content analysis and thematic analysis were used to identify key themes via the Theoretical Domains Framework.RESULTS:The experiences of 30 Nova Scotian interviewees clustered around four themes: Communication of PHM, Responsibly Observing PHM: A Community Coming Together, Navigating PHM, and Vaccine Confidence & Hesitancy. Consistent communication of PHM through briefings with the chief medical officer of health and provincial channels reduced misinformation and encouraged PHM compliance. While adherence was high throughout the province, inconsistent enforcement of these measures proved challenging to individuals navigating PHMs. A high level of COVID-19 vaccine confidence and acceptance was identified, and a strong sense of provincial pride prevailed in keeping COVID-19 numbers and transmission low.CONCLUSION:This study provides insights into Nova Scotians' unique experiences with COVID-19 PHM. Provincial public health experts and government leaders communicated PHM with various levels of success, Nova Scotia Strong, a sentiment of unity and communitarianism that sprang from public response to tragic events. Future work should aim to include under-represented communities to facilitate broader inclusion.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the politicization of public health issues. A public health monitoring tool must be equipped to reveal a public health measure’s political context and guide better interventions. In its current form, infoveillance tends to neglect identity and interest-based users, hence being limited in exposing how public health discourse varies by different political groups. Adopting an algorithmic tool to classify users and their short social media texts might remedy that limitation. Objective We aimed to implement a new computational framework to investigate discourses and temporal changes in topics unique to different user clusters. The framework was developed to contextualize how web-based public health discourse varies by identity and interest-based user clusters. We used masks and mask wearing during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the English-speaking world as a case study to illustrate the application of the framework. Methods We first clustered Twitter users based on their identities and interests as expressed through Twitter bio pages. Exploratory text network analysis reveals salient political, social, and professional identities of various user clusters. It then uses BERT Topic modeling to identify topics by the user clusters. It reveals how web-based discourse has shifted over time and varied by 4 user clusters: conservative, progressive, general public, and public health professionals. Results This study demonstrated the importance of a priori user classification and longitudinal topical trends in understanding the political context of web-based public health discourse. The framework reveals that the political groups and the general public focused on the science of mask wearing and the partisan politics of mask policies. A populist discourse that pits citizens against elites and institutions was identified in some tweets. Politicians (such as Donald Trump) and geopolitical tensions with China were found to drive the discourse. It also shows limited participation of public health professionals compared with other users. Conclusions We conclude by discussing the importance of a priori user classification in analyzing web-based discourse and illustrating the fit of BERT Topic modeling in identifying contextualized topics in short social media texts.

Uptake of vaccination during pregnancy in Canada is lower than comparator countries. A recommendation from a trusted perinatal healthcare provider is a key opportunity to promote vaccine uptake and improve confidence. This study aims to identify barriers and opportunities to vaccination in midwifery care. Seventeen semi-structured telephone interviews with practicing midwives, educators and public health professionals with immunization training experiences were conducted. Documents pertaining to the midwifery profession (approx. 50) were reviewed. Inductive thematic analysis identified logistical, interprofessional, and information barriers preventing Canadian midwives from administering vaccines and counseling clients about vaccination, as well as opportunities to address each barrier. Key interventions at the level of logistics, training, and client information materials would help address barriers to the integration of midwives into the provision and recommendation of vaccines in perinatal care across Canada.

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people's access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.