Self-efficacy (or the belief in one’s ability to effect change) often moderates the relationship between education, interest, and actions in evaluations of training programs that prepare community-based investigators in the clinical and translational sciences workforce. Such evaluations, however, tend to emphasize individual-level attitudes when there are also community- or organizational-level outcomes impacted. Methods: This study uses a novel sequential, explanatory mixed-methods design to explore multiple levels of self-efficacy (or self-awareness of personal growth in leadership) in the Clinical Scholars program, an equity-centered leadership development program for mid- to later-career healthcare professionals. Our design involves: (1) bivariate correlations and confirmatory factor analysis of self-assessed competencies across all program participants to identify emergent combinations of competencies, which informed (2) more nuanced thematic coding of participants’ stories of most significant change in their personal and professional lives, as a result of the program. Results: In unpacking their accounts of personal leadership styles (that aligned with our quantitative analyses of competencies), we found that participants demonstrated multiple competencies simultaneously. Specifically, they employed emotionally intelligent learning and consensus-building dialogue to manage conflict for interpersonal impact. Additionally, they used this combination of skills to unite diverse stakeholders under a shared vision in order to lead and manage organizational change where all colleagues’ contributions were valued. Conclusion: Together, these methods extend our understanding of personal growth in leadership as an outcome of the program in terms of individual- and organizational-level impacts, using representative quantitative self-assessments to categorize rich qualitative descriptions.

To understand how the implementation of primary care services for transgender individuals is undertaken and delivered by practitioners in Northern Ontario.

Northern Ontario, Canada, has a shortage of primary care health practitioners, and of these, there are a limited number providing transgender primary care. Transgender people in Northern Ontario must also negotiate a lack of allied and specialty services related to transgender health and travel over long distances to access those services that do exist.

A convergent mixed methods design was guided by normalization process theory (NPT) to explore transgender primary care delivery and implementation by nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians, social workers, and psychotherapists. A survey measuring implementation processes was elaborated through qualitative interviews with participants. Analysis of key themes emerging using the NPT framework informed understanding of primary care successes, barriers, and gaps in Northern Ontario.

Key themes included the need for more education on transgender primary care practice, increased need for training and awareness on transgender resources, identification of unique gaps and barriers to access in Northern Ontario transgender care, and the benefits of embedding and normalizing transgender care in clinical practice to practitioners and transgender patients. These findings are key to understanding and improving access and eliminating healthcare barriers for transgender people in Northern Ontario.

A clinical tool to estimate the risk of treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS) in people with first-episode psychosis (FEP) would inform early detection of TRS and overcome the delay of up to 5 years in starting TRS medication.

To develop and evaluate a model that could predict the risk of TRS in routine clinical practice.

We used data from two UK-based FEP cohorts (GAP and AESOP-10) to develop and internally validate a prognostic model that supports identification of patients at high-risk of TRS soon after FEP diagnosis. Using sociodemographic and clinical predictors, a model for predicting risk of TRS was developed based on penalised logistic regression, with missing data handled using multiple imputation. Internal validation was undertaken via bootstrapping, obtaining optimism-adjusted estimates of the model's performance. Interviews and focus groups with clinicians were conducted to establish clinically relevant risk thresholds and understand the acceptability and perceived utility of the model.

We included seven factors in the prediction model that are predominantly assessed in clinical practice in patients with FEP. The model predicted treatment resistance among the 1081 patients with reasonable accuracy; the model's C-statistic was 0.727 (95% CI 0.723–0.732) prior to shrinkage and 0.687 after adjustment for optimism. Calibration was good (expected/observed ratio: 0.999; calibration-in-the-large: 0.000584) after adjustment for optimism.

We developed and internally validated a prediction model with reasonably good predictive metrics. Clinicians, patients and carers were involved in the development process. External validation of the tool is needed followed by co-design methodology to support implementation in early intervention services.

Assessing perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccines is essential for understanding vaccine hesitancy and for improving uptake during public health emergencies. In the complicated landscape of COVID-19 vaccine mandates and rampant misinformation, many individuals faced challenges during vaccination decision-making. The purpose of our mixed methods study is to elucidate factors affecting vaccine decision-making and to highlight the discourse surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines in diverse and underserved communities.

This mixed methods study was conducted in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin between March and November 2021, combining a cross-sectional survey (n = 3593) and focus groups (n = 47).

The groups least likely to report receiving a vaccination were non-Hispanic Whites, Indigenous people, males, and those with moderate socioeconomic status (SES). Those indicating high and low SES reported similar vaccination uptake. Focus group data highlighted resistance to mandates, distrust, misinformation, and concerns about the rapid development surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Psychological reactance theory posits that strongly persuasive messaging and social pressure can be perceived as a threat to freedom, encouraging an individual to take action to restore that freedom.

Our findings indicate that a subsection of participants felt pressured to get the vaccine, which led to weaker intentions to vaccinate. These results suggest that vaccine rollout strategies should be reevaluated to improve and facilitate informed decision-making.