Decision coaching is a non-directive approach to support patients to prepare for making health decisions. It is used to facilitate patients’ involvement in informed values-based decision-making and use of evidence-based health information. A recent systematic review revealed low certainty evidence for its effectiveness with and without evidence-based information. However, there may be opportunities to improve the study and use of decision coaching in clinical practice by systematically investigating its determinants of practice. We aim to conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesise the determinants of practice for providing decision coaching to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making from multiple perspectives that influence its use.

We will conduct a mixed-methods systematic review guided by the Cochrane’ Handbook of Systematic Reviews. We will include studies reporting determinants of practice influencing decision coaching with or without evidence-based patient information with adults making a health decision for themselves or a family member. Systematic literature searches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO via Ovid and CINAHL via EBSCO including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods study designs. Additionally, experts in the field will be contacted.

Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data. We will synthesise determinants using deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis and a coding frame developed specifically for this review based on a taxonomy of barriers and enablers of shared decision-making mapped onto the major domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We will assess the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

Ethical approval is not required as this systematic review involves only previously published literature. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at scientific conferences and disseminated to relevant consumer groups.

CRD42022338299.

Healthcare workers were recruited early in 2020 to chart effects on their health as the COVID-19 pandemic evolved. The aim was to identify modifiable workplace risk factors for infection and mental ill health.

Participants were recruited from four Canadian provinces, physicians (medical doctors, MDs) in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, registered nurses (RNs), licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and healthcare aides (HCAs) in Alberta and personal support workers (PSWs) in Ontario. Volunteers gave blood for serology testing before and after vaccination. Cases with COVID-19 were matched with up to four referents in a nested case-referent study.

Overall, 4964/5130 (97%) of those recruited joined the longitudinal cohort: 1442 MDs, 3136 RNs, 71 LPNs, 235 PSWs, 80 HCAs. Overall, 3812 (77%) were from Alberta. Prepandemic risk factors for mental ill health and respiratory illness differed markedly by occupation. Participants completed questionnaires at recruitment, fall 2020, spring 2021, spring 2022. By 2022, 4837 remained in the cohort (127 had retired, moved away or died), for a response rate of 89% (4299/4837). 4567/4964 (92%) received at least one vaccine shot: 2752/4567 (60%) gave postvaccine blood samples. Ease of accessing blood collection sites was a strong determinant of participation. Among 533 cases and 1697 referents recruited to the nested case-referent study, risk of infection at work decreased with widespread vaccination.

Serology results (concentration of IgG) together with demographic data will be entered into the publicly accessible database compiled by the Canadian Immunology Task Force. Linkage with provincial administrative health databases will permit case validation, investigation of longer-term sequelae of infection and comparison with community controls. Analysis of the existing dataset will concentrate on effects on IgG of medical condition, medications and stage of pregnancy, and the role of occupational exposures and supports on mental health during the pandemic.