ORCID Profile
0000-0002-7318-7713
Current Organisations
Western University
,
University of Toronto
,
Western University Faculty of Health Sciences
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Hindawi Limited
Date: 2016
DOI: 10.1155/2016/4983790
Abstract: Background . Audit and feedback (A/F) reports are one of the few knowledge translation activities that can effect change in physician behavior. In this study, we pilot-tested an endoscopist A/F report to elicit opinions about the proposed report’s usability, acceptability and usefulness, and implications for knowledge translation. Methods . Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven endoscopists in Ontario, Canada. We tested an A/F report template comprising 9 validated, accepted colonoscopy quality indicators populated with simulated data. Interview transcripts were coded using techniques such as constant comparison and themes were identified inductively over several team meetings. Results . Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) overall perceptions of the A/F report (2) accountability and consequences for poor performance (3) motivation to change/improve skills and (4) training for performance enhancement and available resources. The A/F report was well received however, participants cited some possible threats to the report’s effectiveness including the perceived threat of loss of privileges or licensing and the potential for the data to be dismissed. Conclusions . Participants agreed that A/F has the potential to improve colonoscopy performance. However, in order to be effective in changing physician behavior, A/F must be thoughtfully implemented with attention to the potential concerns of its recipients.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 19-11-2014
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-09-2013
DOI: 10.1111/BJHP.12066
Abstract: Behaviour change interventions often target 'important' beliefs. The literature proposes four methods for assessing importance of attitudinal beliefs: elicitation frequency, importance ratings, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate). We tested congruence between these methods in a Delphi study about selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD). SDD improves infection rates among critically ill patients, yet uptake in intensive care units is low internationally. A Delphi study involved three iterations ('rounds'). Participants were 105 intensive care clinicians in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia/New Zealand. In Round 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit beliefs about delivering SDD. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants completed questionnaires, rating agreement and importance for each belief-statement (9-point Likert scales). Belief importance was assessed using elicitation frequency, mean importance ratings, and prediction of global attitude (Pearson's correlations beta-weights). Correlations between indices were computed. Participants generated 14 attitudinal beliefs. Indices had adequate variation (frequencies: 4-94, mean importance ratings: 4.93-8.00, Pearson's correlations: ± 0.09 to ± 0.54, beta-weights: ± 0.01 to ± 0.30). SDD increases antibiotic resistance was the most important belief according to three methods and was ranked second by beta-weights (behind Overall, SDD benefits patients to whom it is delivered). Spearman's correlations were significant for importance ratings with frequencies and correlations. However, other indices were unrelated. The top four beliefs differed according to the measure used. Results provided evidence of congruence across three methods for assessing belief importance. Beta-weights were unrelated to other indices, suggesting that they may not be appropriate as the sole method. What is already known on this subject? Attitudinal beliefs (specific beliefs about the consequences of performing an action) are key to designing interventions to change intentions and behaviour. The literature reports four methods for assessing the importance of attitudinal beliefs: frequency of elicitation in interviews, importance ratings in questionnaires, and strength of prediction (bivariate and multivariate) of global attitude scores. The congruence between these measures of importance is not known. What does this study add? Four indices of importance were examined in a multi-professional, international study about the use of selective digestive decontamination to prevent infection in intensive care settings. Three indices were correlated with one another. Each method used to assess importance produced a different subset of the most important beliefs. Selection of the most important beliefs should use multiple assessment methods. This evidence suggests that multiple regression approaches may not be appropriate as the sole method for assessing belief importance.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2016
DOI: 10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2015.08.036
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore career satisfaction and advancement for women in academic surgery. A 48-item web-based survey was emailed to women surgeons in academic centers across Canada, exploring career advancement, family planning, mentorship, discrimination, and career satisfaction. The survey response rate was 38% (81 of 212) 18% of participants felt they experienced gender discrimination in medical school, 36% in residency, 12% in fellowship, and 41% as staff surgeons. More than half felt that their gender had played a role in the career challenges they faced. Responses to open-ended questions suggested that many surgeons struggled to balance their academic careers with family life. Despite this, participants rated their career satisfaction very highly. There remain ongoing challenges for women in academic surgery including lack of gender equality, appropriate mentorship, and accommodations for surgeons with families. Continued advancement of women in academic surgery is dependent on addressing these concerns.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2023
DOI: 10.1016/J.JPAIN.2022.10.001
Abstract: Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The s le was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2020
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-04-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2014
DOI: 10.1016/J.JCRC.2014.03.013
Abstract: Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) as a prophylactic intervention improves hospital-acquired infection and survival rates. Uptake of SDD is low and remains controversial. This study applied the theoretical domains framework to assess intensive care unit clinicians' views about SDD in regions with limited or no adoption of SDD. Participants were health professionals with "decisional authority" for the adoption of SDD. Semistructured interviews were conducted as the first round of a Delphi study. Views about SDD adoption, delivery, and further SDD research were explored. Directed content analysis of interview data identified subthemes, which informed item development for subsequent Delphi rounds. Linguistic features of interview data were also explored. One hundred forty-one participants provided interview data. Fifty-six subthemes were identified 46 were common across regions. Beliefs about consequences were the most widely elaborated theme. Linguistic features of how participants discussed SDD included caution expressed when discussing the risks and benefits and words such as "worry," "anxiety," and "fear" when discussing potential antibiotic resistance associated with SDD. We identified salient beliefs, barriers, and facilitators to SDD adoption and delivery. What participants said about SDD and the way in which they said it demonstrated the degree of clinical caution, uncertainty, and concern that SDD evokes.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2016
DOI: 10.1016/J.AMJSURG.2016.06.006
Abstract: The number of women in surgery has steadily increased, yet their numbers in academic surgery positions and in high-ranking leadership roles remain low. To create strategies to address and improve this problem, it is essential to examine how gender plays into the advancement of a woman's career in academic surgery. Focus group (1) and one-on-one qualitative interviews (8) were conducted with women academic surgeons from various subspecialties in a large university setting. Interviews examined women surgeons' accounts of their experiences as women in surgery. Audio-recorded data were transcribed verbatim and coded thematically. NVivo10 software was used for cross-referencing of data and categorization of data into themes. Focus group data suggested that gender discrimination was pervasive in academic surgery. However, in interviews, most interviewees strongly disavowed the possibility that their gender had any bearing on their professional lives. These surgeons attempted to distance themselves from the possibility of discrimination by suggesting that differences in men and women surgeons' experiences are due to personality issues and personal choices. However, their narratives highlighted deep contradiction they both affirmed and denied the relevance of gender for their experience as surgeons. As overt acts of discrimination become less acceptable in society, it does not necessarily disappear but rather manifests itself in covert forms. By disavowing and distancing themselves from discrimination, these women exposed the degree to which these issues continue to be pervasive in surgery. Women surgeons' ability to both identify and resist discrimination was hobbled by narratives of in idualism, gender equality, and normative ideas of gender difference.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-029048
Abstract: There has been limited research on the acceptability of breast reconstruction (BR) to breast cancer patients. We performed interviews to explore breast cancer patients’ acceptability of BR. Qualitative study. Recruitment from six Ontario hospitals across the province (Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, London, Thunder Bay and Windsor) as well as key breast cancer organisations between November 2017 and June 2018. Women of any age with a diagnosis of breast cancer planning to undergo or having undergone a mastectomy with or without BR. Sixty-minute semi-structured interviews were analysed using qualitative descriptive methodology that draws on inductive thematic analysis. In the telephone interviews, participants discussed their experience with breast cancer and accessing BR, focusing on the acceptability of BR as a surgical option post-mastectomy. Of the 28 participants, 11 had undergone BR at the time of the interview, 5 at the time of mastectomy and 6 at a later date. Four inter-related themes were identified that reflected women’s evolving ideas about BR as they progressed through different stages of their disease and treatment. The themes we developed were: (1) cancer survival before BR, (2) the influence of physicians on BR acceptability, (3) patient’s shift to BR acceptance and (4) women’s need to justify BR. For many women, access to BR surgery became more salient over time, thus adding a temporal element to the existing access framework. In our study, women’s access to BR was negatively influenced by the poor acceptability of this surgical procedure. The acceptability of BR was a complex process taking place over time, from the moment of breast cancer diagnosis to BR consideration. BR access may be improved through enhancing patient acceptability of BR. We suggest adapting the current access to care frameworks by further developing the concept of acceptability.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 06-01-2016
No related grants have been discovered for Fiona Webster.