Canadian report card on health equity across the life-course: Analysis of time trends and cross-national comparisons with the United Kingdom

Identifying gaps in COVID-19 health equity data reporting in Canada using a scorecard approach

OBJECTIVE

To assess health equity-oriented COVID-19 reporting across Canadian provinces and territories, using a scorecard approach.

METHODS

A scan was performed of provincial and territorial reporting of five data elements (cumulative totals of tests, cases, hospitalizations, deaths, and population size) across three units of aggregation (province or territory level, health regions, and local areas) (15 "overall" indicators), and for four vulnerable settings (long-term care and detention facilities, schools, and homeless shelters) and eight social markers (age, sex, immigration status, race/ethnicity, healthcare worker status, occupational sector, income, and education) (180 "equity-related" indicators) as of December 31, 2020. Per indicator, one point was awarded if case-delimited data were released, 0.7 points if only summary statistics were reported, and 0 if neither was provided. Results were presented using a scorecard approach.

RESULTS

Overall, information was more complete for cases and deaths than for tests, hospitalizations, and population size denominators needed for rate estimation. Information provided on jurisdictions and their regions, overall, tended to be more available (average score of 58%, "D") than that for equity-related indicators (average score of 17%, "F"). Only British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario provided case-delimited data, with Ontario and Alberta providing case information for local areas. No jurisdiction reported on outcomes according to patients' immigration status, race/ethnicity, income, or education. Though several provinces reported on cases in long-term care facilities, only Ontario and Quebec provided detailed information for detention facilities and schools, and only Ontario reported on cases within homeless shelters and across occupational sectors.

CONCLUSION

One year into the pandemic, socially stratified reporting for COVID-19 outcomes remains sparse in Canada. However, several "best practices" in health equity-oriented reporting were observed and set a relevant precedent for all jurisdictions to follow for this pandemic and future ones.

Peer outreach point-of-care testing as a bridge to hepatitis C care for people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs have high rates of hepatitis C (HCV) and yet many remain undiagnosed and untreated. HCV treatment guidelines and elimination strategies recommend task-shifting to expand where, and by whom, HCV testing and care is delivered.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial design was used to evaluate if point-of-care (POC) HCV antibody testing by peer outreach workers outside of health and social service spaces would improve engagement in HCV care. People with a lifetime history of injection drug use without prior knowledge of HCV antibody status were randomized to receive HCV outreach plus either POC or referral to community-based HCV program for testing as usual. The study was co-designed by people with lived experience of HCV.

RESULTS

920 people were approached to participate over 14 weeks. After refusals, withdrawals and removal of duplicates, there were 380 study participants. Outreach took place primarily in public spaces (66%) such as parks, coffee shops and apartment lobbies. Participants reported very high rates of poverty, housing instability and recent injection drug use. Despite being at high risk for HCV, 61% had no history or knowledge of past HCV testing (n = 230). Of those who received a POC test 77/195 (39%) were positive for HCV antibodies. There was no change in rates of engagement in HCV care among those who received the POC (n = 6; 3%) compared to those who did not (n = 5; 3%).

CONCLUSION

Peer outreach workers were able to efficiently reach a marginalized group of individuals who had a high HCV antibody prevalence and low rates of prior HCV testing. This improved participants' knowledge of their HCV antibody status, but that knowledge in itself did not lead to any change in participant's subsequent engagement in HCV care. Future work is required to evaluate strategies such as incentives or peer navigators to improve linkage to HCV care after diagnosis.