Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.

Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.

596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.

1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.

Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.

55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p

The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both.

ISRCTN21333761.

The WHO has stated that vaccine hesitancy is a serious threat to overcoming COVID-19. Vaccine hesitancy among underserved and at-risk communities is an ongoing challenge in Canada. Public confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness and the principles of equity need to be considered in vaccine distribution. In Canada, governments of each province or territory manage their own healthcare system, providing an opportunity to compare and contrast distribution strategies. The overarching objective of this study is to identify effective vaccine distribution approaches and advance knowledge on how to design and implement various strategies to meet the different needs of underserved communities.

Multiple case studies in seven Canadian provinces will be conducted using a mixed-methods design. The study will be informed by Experience-Based CoDesign techniques and theoretically guided by the Socio-Ecological Model and the Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix frameworks. Phase 1 will involve a policy document review to systematically explore the vaccine distribution strategy over time in each jurisdiction. This will inform the second phase, which will involve (2a) semistructured, in-depth interviews with policymakers, public health officials, researchers, providers, groups representing patients, researchers and stakeholders and (2b) an analysis of population-based administrative health data of vaccine administration. Integration of qualitative and quantitative data will inform the identification of effective vaccine distribution approaches for various populations. Informed by this evidence, phase 3 of the study will involve conducting focus groups with multiple stakeholders to codesign recommendations for the design and implementation of effective vaccine delivery strategies for equity-deserving and at-risk populations.

This study is approved by the University of Toronto’s Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (#42643), University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (#H22-01750-A002), Research Ethics Board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (#48272), Newfoundland and Labrador Health Research Ethics Board (#2022.126), Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary (REB22-0207), and University of Manitoba Health Research Board (H2022-239). The outcome of this study will be to produce a series of recommendations for implementing future vaccine distribution approaches from the perspective of various stakeholders, including equity-deserving and at-risk populations.