Despite well-known recommendations from national and international bodies including the World Health Organization, few mothers achieve the goal of breastfeeding exclusively for 6 months. Half of mothers stop breastfeeding due to biomechanical issues in the first month, despite increasing support from lactation consultants. Osteopaths worldwide work with these babies, but there is little empirical evidence for this type of treatment. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of an osteopathic treatment coupled with usual lactation consultations on infants’ ability to latch. Secondary objectives included assessment of nipple pain and mothers’ perceptions of the effect of treatment. We conducted a single blind, randomized controlled trial at a mother-to-mother support group between January and December 2015. Data were collected at four different times over a 10-day period (T0-T10) from 97 mother–infant dyads using the LATCH assessment tool, a visual analog scale (VAS) to document mothers’ nipple pain, and a de novo questionnaire for breastfeeding management and potential treatment side effects. There were consistent statistical and clinical differences in the mean LATCH scores between the treatment and the control groups (p < .001). However, no significant differences in the VAS scores were reported over time (p = .713). Mothers reported no serious or unexpected side effects during the follow-up period. This study is one of the first to bring together lactation consultants and osteopaths to address infants with biomechanical sucking difficulties. Findings support the hypothesis that the addition of osteopathy to regular lactation consultations is beneficial and safe.

The prevalence of comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders is high among patients with chronic diseases in primary care, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates. The detection and treatment of common mental disorders in patients with chronic diseases can be challenging in the primary care setting. This study aims to explore the perceived needs, barriers and facilitators for the delivery of mental health care for patients with coexisting common mental disorders and chronic diseases in primary care from the clinician and patient perspectives. In this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians (family physician, nurse, psychologist, social worker; n = 18) and patients (n = 10) from three primary care clinics in Quebec, Canada. The themes explored included clinician factors (e.g., attitudes, perception of roles, collaboration, management of clinical priorities) and patient factors (e.g., needs, preferences, access to care, communication with health professionals) associated with the delivery of care. Qualitative data analysis was conducted based on an interactive cyclical process of data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing and verification. Clinician interviews highlighted a number of needs, barriers and enablers in the provision of patient services, which related to inter-professional collaboration, access to psychotherapy, polypharmacy as well as communication and coordination of services within the primary care clinic and the local network. Two specific facilitators associated with optimal mental health care were the broadening of nurses’ functions in mental health care and the active integration of consulting psychiatrists. Patients corroborated the issues raised by the clinicians, particularly in the domains of whole-person care, service accessibility and care management. The results of this project will contribute to the development of quality improvement interventions to increase the uptake of organizational and clinical evidence-based practices for patients with chronic diseases and concurrent common mental disorders, in priority areas including collaborative care, access to psychotherapy and linkages with specialized mental health care.

Introduction: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains a challenge in primary care and multiple barriers can limit implementation of COPD guidelines. Since 2016, a quality improvement (QI) collaborative, called COMPAS+, has been implemented across the province of Quebec (Canada) to support improvement of chronic disease management in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe the main COPD quality problems reported by participating teams and the strategies they proposed and implemented to improve COPD primary care services in Quebec. Methods: Sixteen sites in four different regions of Quebec were engaged in the COMPAS+ intervention to improve primary care services delivered to people living with COPD. A total of 14 workshop reports, 31 QI action plans and 4 regional final reports underwent content analysis. Key COPD quality problems were first identified and, for each of them, root causes were classified according to the domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Proposed strategies were organized according to the intervention function types described in the Behavior Change Wheel. Results: Four key COPD quality problems were identified: 1) lack of organization/coordination of COPD services, 2) lack of screening services coordination, 3) lack of interprofessional communication and collaboration and 4) lack of treatment adherence. Main root causes explaining these quality gaps were 1) lack of awareness of COPD, 2) lack of professional knowledge, 3) lack of definition of professional roles, 4) lack of resources and tools for COPD prevention, diagnosis, and follow-up, 5) lack of communication tools, 6) lack of integration of the patient-as-partner approach, and 7) lack of adaptation of patient education to their specific needs. Multiple strategies were proposed to improve healthcare professionals’ education and interprofessional collaboration and communication. Conclusion: QI collaborative activities can support achieving understanding of QI challenges healthcare organizations face to improve COPD services.

Team-based care can improve integrated health services by increasing comprehensiveness and continuity of care in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Collaborative models involving providers from different professions can help to achieve coordinated, high-quality person-centred care. In Canada, there has been variation in both the timing/pace of adoption and approach to interprofessional PHC (IPHC) policy. Provinces are at different stages in the development, implementation, and evaluation of team-based PHC models. This paper describes how different policies, contexts, and innovations across four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec) facilitate or limit integrated health services through IPHC teams. Systematic searches identified 100 policy documents across the four provinces. Analysis was informed by Walt and Gilson’s Policy Triangle (2008) and Suter et al.’s (2009) health system integration principles. Provincial policy case studies were constructed and used to complete a cross-case comparison. Each province implemented variations of an IPHC based model. Five key components were found that influenced IPHC and integrated health services: patient-centred care; team structures; information systems; financial management; and performance measurement. Heterogeneity of the implementation of PHC teams across Canadian provinces provides an opportunity to learn and improve interprofessional care and integrated health services across jurisdictions.

As complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has developed extensively, uncertainty about the appropriateness of the terms CAM and other CAM-related terms has grown both in the research and practice communities. Various terms and definitions have been proposed over the last three decades, highlighting how little agreement exits in the field. Contextual use of current terms and their respective definitions needs to be discussed and addressed.