EducationNCT05890144
RCT of Intensive, Brief, and Control Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Interventions for Health Care Providers
A study testing Big Canoe and Little Canoe in people with Education, run by Unity Health Toronto at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Despite Canada's relative global affluence, striking Indigenous/non-Indigenous health disparities persist. Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Final Report, and the publication of the First Peoples, Second Class Treatment report, there has been a growing recognition that the… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Education
- What is being tested?
- Big Canoe and Little Canoe
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 58 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 1 Mar 2018to 5 Apr 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Physicians, resident physicians, or nurse practitioners
- Non-Indigenous
- Affiliated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Canada
- Work in the Department of Family Medicine or the Emergency Department from January 2018 until 3 months post completion of training
Who cannot join
- Completion of Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Program or San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program;
- Indigenous
- Intend to leave St. Michaels Hospital before 3 month post-intervention window
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Reconciling Relationships - An RCT Examining Relational and Clinical Decision-Making Impacts of Intensive, Brief and Control Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Interventions for Health Care Providers
Despite Canada's relative global affluence, striking Indigenous/non-Indigenous health disparities persist. Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Final Report, and the publication of the First Peoples, Second Class Treatment report, there has been a growing recognition that the Canadian healthcare system - and the healthcare professional (HCP) - Indigenous patient relationship in particular - is a critical, necessary, and promising juncture for intervention. There has been a significant increase in the number of Indigenous cultural safety trainings for HCP across Canada. However, these programs have yet to be systematically evaluated.
This study will use a randomized parallel group design to understand and compare the effects of an intensive multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety training program (Arm 1); a brief, 2-hour, computer-based training session plus 2 follow-up emails (Arm 2); and primary care-related training program (Arm 3, control) for staff physicians, nurse practitioners, and resident physicians affiliated at large urban academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. 60 participants will be recruited and randomized into one of the three study arms. Participants will complete a series of surveys and questionnaires at baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention that include measures of explicit and implicit race bias.
We predict that the educational intervention in Arm 1 will have the most positive effect, followed by Arm 2 and 3 respectively. We anticipate that the results of this study will help urban hospitals implement Indigenous cultural safety training programs that are beneficial to their staff and ultimately improve the quality of care provided to Indigenous patients across Canada.
Read the detailed description
STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this non-commercial, social equity, randomized control trial is to respond to the Calls for Action of the TRC by contributing to the evidence regarding the effectiveness of intensive and brief Indigenous cultural safety training programming for HCP.
The primary objective of this study is:
- To understand and compare the relational and clinical decision-making impacts of an intensive multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety educational intervention; a brief 2-hour Indigenous race-bias educational intervention; and control intervention (primary care training that is time-attention matched to the intensive intervention) for staff physicians, resident physicians, and nurse practitioners affiliated with a large urban academic teaching hospital in Canada (St. Michael's Hospital).
The secondary objectives of this study are:
- To document Indigenous race preference bias and differential decision making among physicians, resident physicians, and nurse practitioners affiliated with SMH.
- To further develop and pilot Indigenous race bias educational evaluation tools and methods including a novel Indigenous Peoples in Canada - Implicit Association Test (IPC-IAT) and Indigenous Standardized Patients.
- To build on and enhance existing San'yas and Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Indigenous Race Bias Training Curriculum for Health Care Providers including new modules.
STUDY DESIGN
This study is a randomized parallel group design. Participants will be randomized into one of three study arms. Participants in Arm 1 ("the Big Canoe") will complete an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. The curriculum in Arm 1 was developed by study partners at the San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program in British Columbia with the support of the Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program. Participants in Arm 2 ("the Little Canoe") will complete a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session. The intervention in Arm 2 is an Indigenized version of an anti-bias education intervention developed and validated by Drs. Devine and Cox from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Participants in Arm 3 (control) will complete a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter. It will be administered via the Audio Digest Foundation (http://www.audio-digest.org/) platform, which houses accredited online courses for physicians and nurse practitioners.
The study proposes the use of deception practices (a temporary waiver of consent), as per Article 3.7A \& B of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2).17 Each participant will be visited once by an unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) at 6-8 weeks post-intervention. The UISP will be trained to evaluate the participant's relational skills as well as their adherence to clinical guidelines. The rationale for the use of deception in this study is provided under Participant Recruitment, Enrollment, and Randomization.
STUDY SAMPLE AND SAMPLE SIZE
Participants in this study will include non-Indigenous physicians, nurse practitioners, and residents recruited from Emergency Department (ED) and the Academic Family Health Team at St. Michael's Hospital.
We aim to recruit 60 participants in each study arm, for a total of 180 participants. This should allow us to detect a difference of just under 6% in relational and clinical decision-making impact scores between treatment arms, with 20% participant attrition. This should be sufficient to, at minimum, demonstrate impact of our two intervention arms compared to control for our two primary outcomes (unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) provider relational assessment and clinical decision-making during UISP encounter).
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT, ENROLLMENT, AND RANDOMIZATION
Together, with each department head, Dr. Janet Smylie will provide an information session at a department staff meeting. The Research Coordinator will work with department heads to identify an appropriate departmental staff member to send an email to all of the physicians, residents, and nurse practitioners in their department that contains the study's promotional materials. The promotional materials will also be displayed in each department with the permission of the department heads. Interested staff members will be instructed in the promotional materials to contact the Research Coordinator via email or phone to learn more about the study
The Research Coordinator will be responsible for answering questions about the study and keeping track of all SMH staff who express interest in the study in an Excel spreadsheet. The Research Coordinator will email and/or hand-deliver the study information letter to SMH staff who are interested in the study. Interested staff will be instructed to visit the secure Qualtrics webpage, which will house the screening questionnaire and the study information letter and consent form. The study information letter includes information about the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and measures taken to protect privacy and confidentiality.
The study proposes the use of deception as per Article 3.7 A \& B of the TCPS-217, altering the requirements for consent as set out in Articles 3.1-3.5. The study proposes that each participant be visited once by an unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) at 6-8 weeks post-intervention. The UISP will be trained to evaluate the participant's relational skills as well as their adherence to clinical guidelines. The study proposes a temporary waiver of consent where participants will not be informed of the UISP visit until data collection is complete, at which time each participant will be debriefed and explicitly offered the option of refusing consent and/or withdrawing data in accordance with Article 3.7B of the TCPS2.
Immediately following completion of data collection, and prior to any analysis and/or dissemination activities, all participants will be debriefed in person by a member of the SMH research team. Debrief will be based on the findings from the UISP evaluations and not the actual recordings in order to reduce the risk of harm to the participant (i.e. personal guilt and/or incrimination). Following debrief, the SMH research team member will also explicitly offer participants the opportunity to refuse consent and/or withdraw data in accordance with Article 3.7B of the TCPS2. In addition, those individuals who have not yet completed the "Big Canoe" educational intervention will be provided the opportunity to do so, in order to ensure that all participants have fair and equal access to cultural safety training.
After consent has been obtained, participants will be prompted to enter their email to be immediately randomized into one of the study arms and to be assigned a Participant ID# . After randomization, all participants will receive an email with a link to the baseline questionnaire. This questionnaire must be completed before they begin their intervention. Participants in Arm 1, 2 and 3 will be given a link to access the online training intervention they have been randomized to receive.
Participants can withdraw from the study at any time. Participants who withdraw will not qualify for the Mainpro+ or Maintenance of Certification credits associated with the educational intervention, in its stead, they will be given the opportunity to complete the intensive online training (also accredited), for free, once the study has been completed.
DATA COLLECTION \& ANALYSIS
Questionnaires At baseline, all participants will complete the following questionnaires: socio-demographic questionnaire, measures of explicit bias, the Indigenous Implicit Association Test (measure of implicit bias), and for Arm 1 only, the San'yas questionnaire. Participants will complete the same questionnaires (with the exception of the socio-demographics questionnaire) at 9-11 weeks post-intervention as well.
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized Patients Participants will also be visited by one (1) UISP without previous knowledge 8-10 weeks post-intervention completion . Indigenous actors will be hired and trained to act out a specific scenario as a UISP. Following each encounter, the UISP will complete the UISP Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and UISP Cultural Safety Assessment Scoring Tool.
Data Analysis The data collected from the baseline and post-intervention questionnaires and the Indigenous standardized patients will be analyzed using the appropriate software and statistical techniques.
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
To ensure that this study does not have any negative consequences for Indigenous patients and the Indigenous communities served by St. Michael's Hospital, we have asked that the St. Michael's Hospital Indigenous Community Advisory Panel (CAP) serve as the Community Advisory Board for this trial. The Indigenous CAP has agreed to serve as the Community Advisory Board.
DISSEMINATION
The results of this study will be presented at conferences, in publications, and other public academic forums.
- Conditions
- Education
- Being tested
- Big Canoe, Little Canoe, Control
- Keywords
- Indigenous Health, Aboriginal Health, Racism, Implicit Bias, Cultural Safety, Cultural Safety Training
- Medical subject headings
- Racism, Bias, Implicit
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Big CanoeOther
The Big Canoe will involve an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. It is 10 modules long and takes 10 weeks to complete (1 hour of learning per week).
Little CanoeOther
The Little Canoe involves a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session
ControlOther
The control is a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intensive Intervention ("Big Canoe") | Experimental | 20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 1. Participants in Arm 1 ("the Big Canoe") will complete an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. The curriculum in Arm 1 was developed by the San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program in British Columbia with the support of the Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program. Receives: Other: Big Canoe |
| Brief Intervention ("Little Canoe") | Active comparator | 20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 2. Participants in Arm 2 ("the Little Canoe") will complete a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session. The intervention in Arm 2 is an Indigenous adaption of the Devine et al. (2012) anti-bias habit-breaking intervention. Receives: Other: Little Canoe |
| Control | Other | 20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 3. Participants in Arm 3 (control) will complete a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter. Receives: Other: Control |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Whether or not participant would be recommended as a health care provider to family or friends?
Unannounced Standardized patient answers categorical question: "Would you recommend this health care provider to family and friends?" 4 point Likert scale (1. not recommend; 2. recommend with reservations; 3. recommend; 4. highly recommend. Higher score means better outcome
Measured: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Mean Quality of Health Care Provider Relationship and Communication Scale Score
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized patients will assess their experience of provider engagement, communication, and Indigenous cultural safety skills using the newly developed Quality of Health Care Provider Relationship and Communication Scale. Min value: 1 Max value: 5 Higher score means better outcome.
Measured: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Mean Adherence to Clinical Standards of Care Scale Score
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized patients will assess adherence of participants to clinical standards of care using developed Adherence to Clinical Standards of Care Scale for NSAID renewal and pain assessment. UISPs to present with acute flare of known ankylosing spondylitis and request NSAID renewal. History of episodic retrosternal chest pain suspicious for NSAID induced gastro-esophageal reflux disease only elicited with a review of the GI side effects of NSAIDS. Min value: 0 Max value: 22 Higher score means better outcome.
Measured: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Secondary outcomes (4)
Indigenous Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores
The newly developed Indigenous Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures unconscious/implicit anti-Indigenous/pro-white race preference bias. Minimum score -2.0, maximum score 2.0; positive values denote a preference for white features, negative values denote a preference for Indigenous features.
Measured: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Modern Prejudice Attitudes Towards Aboriginals Scale (M-PATAS)
14 questions and scored on a 6-point Likert scale, minimum score 1; maximum score 6; lower scores denote less prejudice; higher scores denote more prejudice
Measured: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (IMS)
5 questions scored on a 9-point Likert scale; Minimum score 1, Maximum score 9; higher scores denoting more internal motivation
Measured: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (EMS)
5 questions scored on a 9-point Likert scale; Minimum score 1, Maximum score 9; higher scores denoting more external motivation
Measured: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Jun 2023
- Study start1 Mar 2018
- Primary completion31 Aug 2021
- Study completion5 Apr 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for EducationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Unity Health TorontoThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider
- Enrolment
- 58 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health Toronto
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- St. Michael's Hospital Foundation
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Janet Smylie, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, Well Living House, St. Michael's Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05890144
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RR-2019
- Status last verified
- Jun 2023
- First submitted
- 12 May 2023
- Last updated
- 6 Jun 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Brian Sinclair Working Group. Out of Sight. 2017. Accessed from: http://ignoredtodeathmanitoba.ca/index.php/2017/09/15/out-of-sight-interim-report-of-the-sinclair-working-group/
Truth and Reconciliation Canada. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015
Allan, B. & Smylie, J. First Peoples, second class treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Toronto, ON: The Wellesley Institute. 2015
Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WT. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012 Nov;48(6):1267-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003.
PubMed 23524616Morrison MA, Morrison TG, Harriman RL, Jewell LM. Old-fashioned and modern prejudice towards Aboriginals in Canada. In book: The Psychology of Modern Prejudice, (Ed): Morrison Melanie A., Morrison Todd G., Nova Science Publishers., Inc. 2015 pp.277-305.
Smylie J, Rotondi MA, Filipenko S, Cox WTL, Smylie D, Ward C, Klopfer K, Lofters AK, O'Neill B, Graham M, Weber L, Damji AN, Devine PG, Collins J, Hardy BJ. Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training. BMC Med. 2024 Jan 9;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03193-y.
PubMed 38191406
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Jun 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Reconciling Relationships - An RCT Examining Relational and Clinical Decision-Making Impacts of Intensive, Brief and Control Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Interventions for Health Care Providers
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05890144
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RR-2019
- Conditions
- Education
- Keywords
- Indigenous Health, Aboriginal Health, Racism, Implicit Bias, Cultural Safety, Cultural Safety Training
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 58 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Unity Health TorontoUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- St. Michael's Hospital Foundation
- Study start
- 1 Mar 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 5 Apr 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Jun 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Despite Canada's relative global affluence, striking Indigenous/non-Indigenous health disparities persist. Following the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Final Report, and the publication of the First Peoples, Second Class Treatment report, there has been a growing recognition that the Canadian healthcare system - and the healthcare professional (HCP) - Indigenous patient relationship in particular - is a critical, necessary, and promising juncture for intervention. There has been a significant increase in the number of Indigenous cultural safety trainings for HCP across Canada. However, these programs have yet to be systematically evaluated.
This study will use a randomized parallel group design to understand and compare the effects of an intensive multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety training program (Arm 1); a brief, 2-hour, computer-based training session plus 2 follow-up emails (Arm 2); and primary care-related training program (Arm 3, control) for staff physicians, nurse practitioners, and resident physicians affiliated at large urban academic teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. 60 participants will be recruited and randomized into one of the three study arms. Participants will complete a series of surveys and questionnaires at baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention that include measures of explicit and implicit race bias.
We predict that the educational intervention in Arm 1 will have the most positive effect, followed by Arm 2 and 3 respectively. We anticipate that the results of this study will help urban hospitals implement Indigenous cultural safety training programs that are beneficial to their staff and ultimately improve the quality of care provided to Indigenous patients across Canada.
Detailed description
STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this non-commercial, social equity, randomized control trial is to respond to the Calls for Action of the TRC by contributing to the evidence regarding the effectiveness of intensive and brief Indigenous cultural safety training programming for HCP.
The primary objective of this study is:
- To understand and compare the relational and clinical decision-making impacts of an intensive multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety educational intervention; a brief 2-hour Indigenous race-bias educational intervention; and control intervention (primary care training that is time-attention matched to the intensive intervention) for staff physicians, resident physicians, and nurse practitioners affiliated with a large urban academic teaching hospital in Canada (St. Michael's Hospital).
The secondary objectives of this study are:
- To document Indigenous race preference bias and differential decision making among physicians, resident physicians, and nurse practitioners affiliated with SMH.
- To further develop and pilot Indigenous race bias educational evaluation tools and methods including a novel Indigenous Peoples in Canada - Implicit Association Test (IPC-IAT) and Indigenous Standardized Patients.
- To build on and enhance existing San'yas and Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Indigenous Race Bias Training Curriculum for Health Care Providers including new modules.
STUDY DESIGN
This study is a randomized parallel group design. Participants will be randomized into one of three study arms. Participants in Arm 1 ("the Big Canoe") will complete an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. The curriculum in Arm 1 was developed by study partners at the San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program in British Columbia with the support of the Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program. Participants in Arm 2 ("the Little Canoe") will complete a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session. The intervention in Arm 2 is an Indigenized version of an anti-bias education intervention developed and validated by Drs. Devine and Cox from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Participants in Arm 3 (control) will complete a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter. It will be administered via the Audio Digest Foundation (http://www.audio-digest.org/) platform, which houses accredited online courses for physicians and nurse practitioners.
The study proposes the use of deception practices (a temporary waiver of consent), as per Article 3.7A \& B of the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2).17 Each participant will be visited once by an unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) at 6-8 weeks post-intervention. The UISP will be trained to evaluate the participant's relational skills as well as their adherence to clinical guidelines. The rationale for the use of deception in this study is provided under Participant Recruitment, Enrollment, and Randomization.
STUDY SAMPLE AND SAMPLE SIZE
Participants in this study will include non-Indigenous physicians, nurse practitioners, and residents recruited from Emergency Department (ED) and the Academic Family Health Team at St. Michael's Hospital.
We aim to recruit 60 participants in each study arm, for a total of 180 participants. This should allow us to detect a difference of just under 6% in relational and clinical decision-making impact scores between treatment arms, with 20% participant attrition. This should be sufficient to, at minimum, demonstrate impact of our two intervention arms compared to control for our two primary outcomes (unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) provider relational assessment and clinical decision-making during UISP encounter).
PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT, ENROLLMENT, AND RANDOMIZATION
Together, with each department head, Dr. Janet Smylie will provide an information session at a department staff meeting. The Research Coordinator will work with department heads to identify an appropriate departmental staff member to send an email to all of the physicians, residents, and nurse practitioners in their department that contains the study's promotional materials. The promotional materials will also be displayed in each department with the permission of the department heads. Interested staff members will be instructed in the promotional materials to contact the Research Coordinator via email or phone to learn more about the study
The Research Coordinator will be responsible for answering questions about the study and keeping track of all SMH staff who express interest in the study in an Excel spreadsheet. The Research Coordinator will email and/or hand-deliver the study information letter to SMH staff who are interested in the study. Interested staff will be instructed to visit the secure Qualtrics webpage, which will house the screening questionnaire and the study information letter and consent form. The study information letter includes information about the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and measures taken to protect privacy and confidentiality.
The study proposes the use of deception as per Article 3.7 A \& B of the TCPS-217, altering the requirements for consent as set out in Articles 3.1-3.5. The study proposes that each participant be visited once by an unannounced Indigenous standardized patient (UISP) at 6-8 weeks post-intervention. The UISP will be trained to evaluate the participant's relational skills as well as their adherence to clinical guidelines. The study proposes a temporary waiver of consent where participants will not be informed of the UISP visit until data collection is complete, at which time each participant will be debriefed and explicitly offered the option of refusing consent and/or withdrawing data in accordance with Article 3.7B of the TCPS2.
Immediately following completion of data collection, and prior to any analysis and/or dissemination activities, all participants will be debriefed in person by a member of the SMH research team. Debrief will be based on the findings from the UISP evaluations and not the actual recordings in order to reduce the risk of harm to the participant (i.e. personal guilt and/or incrimination). Following debrief, the SMH research team member will also explicitly offer participants the opportunity to refuse consent and/or withdraw data in accordance with Article 3.7B of the TCPS2. In addition, those individuals who have not yet completed the "Big Canoe" educational intervention will be provided the opportunity to do so, in order to ensure that all participants have fair and equal access to cultural safety training.
After consent has been obtained, participants will be prompted to enter their email to be immediately randomized into one of the study arms and to be assigned a Participant ID# . After randomization, all participants will receive an email with a link to the baseline questionnaire. This questionnaire must be completed before they begin their intervention. Participants in Arm 1, 2 and 3 will be given a link to access the online training intervention they have been randomized to receive.
Participants can withdraw from the study at any time. Participants who withdraw will not qualify for the Mainpro+ or Maintenance of Certification credits associated with the educational intervention, in its stead, they will be given the opportunity to complete the intensive online training (also accredited), for free, once the study has been completed.
DATA COLLECTION \& ANALYSIS
Questionnaires At baseline, all participants will complete the following questionnaires: socio-demographic questionnaire, measures of explicit bias, the Indigenous Implicit Association Test (measure of implicit bias), and for Arm 1 only, the San'yas questionnaire. Participants will complete the same questionnaires (with the exception of the socio-demographics questionnaire) at 9-11 weeks post-intervention as well.
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized Patients Participants will also be visited by one (1) UISP without previous knowledge 8-10 weeks post-intervention completion . Indigenous actors will be hired and trained to act out a specific scenario as a UISP. Following each encounter, the UISP will complete the UISP Adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines and UISP Cultural Safety Assessment Scoring Tool.
Data Analysis The data collected from the baseline and post-intervention questionnaires and the Indigenous standardized patients will be analyzed using the appropriate software and statistical techniques.
COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARD
To ensure that this study does not have any negative consequences for Indigenous patients and the Indigenous communities served by St. Michael's Hospital, we have asked that the St. Michael's Hospital Indigenous Community Advisory Panel (CAP) serve as the Community Advisory Board for this trial. The Indigenous CAP has agreed to serve as the Community Advisory Board.
DISSEMINATION
The results of this study will be presented at conferences, in publications, and other public academic forums.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, care provider)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intensive Intervention ("Big Canoe") | Experimental | Other: Big Canoe20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 1. Participants in Arm 1 ("the Big Canoe") will complete an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. The curriculum in Arm 1 was developed by the San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program in British Columbia with the support of the Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program. |
| Brief Intervention ("Little Canoe") | Active comparator | Other: Little Canoe20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 2. Participants in Arm 2 ("the Little Canoe") will complete a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session. The intervention in Arm 2 is an Indigenous adaption of the Devine et al. (2012) anti-bias habit-breaking intervention. |
| Control | Other | Other: Control20 participants will be randomly assigned to Arm 3. Participants in Arm 3 (control) will complete a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Physicians, resident physicians, or nurse practitioners
- Non-Indigenous
- Affiliated with St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Canada
- Work in the Department of Family Medicine or the Emergency Department from January 2018 until 3 months post completion of training
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Completion of Ontario Indigenous Cultural Safety Program or San'yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training Program;
- Indigenous
- Intend to leave St. Michaels Hospital before 3 month post-intervention window
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Big CanoeThe Big Canoe will involve an intensive, multi-modular Indigenous cultural safety education training program that is offered online and led by trained facilitators. It is 10 modules long and takes 10 weeks to complete (1 hour of learning per week). | Other | Intensive Intervention ("Big Canoe") |
| Little CanoeThe Little Canoe involves a brief, 2-hour, interactive, computer-based Indigenous race-bias education session that is offered in a computer lab with a researcher present and followed up with 2 reinforcement/reminder emails that ask questions about strategy usage at 6 and 8 weeks after the session | Other | Brief Intervention ("Little Canoe") |
| ControlThe control is a primary care-related training program that is time-attention matched to Arm 1 but does not contain any content on anti-bias, anti-oppression, Indigenous peoples, or any content related to the unannounced Indigenous standardized patient encounter. | Other | Control |
Primary outcome
Whether or not participant would be recommended as a health care provider to family or friends?
Time frame: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Unannounced Standardized patient answers categorical question: "Would you recommend this health care provider to family and friends?" 4 point Likert scale (1. not recommend; 2. recommend with reservations; 3. recommend; 4. highly recommend. Higher score means better outcome
Mean Quality of Health Care Provider Relationship and Communication Scale Score
Time frame: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized patients will assess their experience of provider engagement, communication, and Indigenous cultural safety skills using the newly developed Quality of Health Care Provider Relationship and Communication Scale. Min value: 1 Max value: 5 Higher score means better outcome.
Mean Adherence to Clinical Standards of Care Scale Score
Time frame: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control
Unannounced Indigenous Standardized patients will assess adherence of participants to clinical standards of care using developed Adherence to Clinical Standards of Care Scale for NSAID renewal and pain assessment. UISPs to present with acute flare of known ankylosing spondylitis and request NSAID renewal. History of episodic retrosternal chest pain suspicious for NSAID induced gastro-esophageal reflux disease only elicited with a review of the GI side effects of NSAIDS. Min value: 0 Max value: 22 Higher score means better outcome.
4 secondary outcomes
Indigenous Implicit Association Test (IAT) Scores
Time frame: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Modern Prejudice Attitudes Towards Aboriginals Scale (M-PATAS)
Time frame: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Internal Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (IMS)
Time frame: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice Scale (EMS)
Time frame: At baseline and 9-11 weeks post-intervention/control
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Jun 2023.
- BackgroundBrian Sinclair Working Group. Out of Sight. 2017. Accessed from: http://ignoredtodeathmanitoba.ca/index.php/2017/09/15/out-of-sight-interim-report-of-the-sinclair-working-group/
- BackgroundTruth and Reconciliation Canada. Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. 2015
- BackgroundAllan, B. & Smylie, J. First Peoples, second class treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Toronto, ON: The Wellesley Institute. 2015
- Background: PubMed 23524616Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, Cox WT. Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2012 Nov;48(6):1267-1278. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003.
- BackgroundMorrison MA, Morrison TG, Harriman RL, Jewell LM. Old-fashioned and modern prejudice towards Aboriginals in Canada. In book: The Psychology of Modern Prejudice, (Ed): Morrison Melanie A., Morrison Todd G., Nova Science Publishers., Inc. 2015 pp.277-305.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38191406Smylie J, Rotondi MA, Filipenko S, Cox WTL, Smylie D, Ward C, Klopfer K, Lofters AK, O'Neill B, Graham M, Weber L, Damji AN, Devine PG, Collins J, Hardy BJ. Randomized controlled trial demonstrates novel tools to assess patient outcomes of Indigenous cultural safety training. BMC Med. 2024 Jan 9;22(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-03193-y.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Education
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Validation of the Healthcare Relationship Assessment Scale (ERA) in Health Sciences Students.
Health Adult Subjects, Communication
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Developing Transcranial Neuromodulation Protocols for Learning and Decision-Making
Normal Physiology
Recruiting
Evaluation of a French Hospital Discharge Therapeutic Education Program by Nurses for Heart Failure Patient (EduSor)
Heart Failure
Recruiting
Tele-HOPE: A Telehealth Pharmacist Opioid Patient Education Pilot Study
Hematopoietic and Lymphatic System Neoplasm, Malignant Solid Neoplasm
Not yet recruiting
Mobile Game-Based Versus Classic First Aid Education in Adolescents: Randomized Controlled Trial
First Aid, Health Education in Schoolchildren
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Janet Smylie, MD, MPH principal investigator
Well Living House, St. Michael's Hospital
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Big Canoe and Little Canoe in people with Education, run by Unity Health Toronto at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Jun 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Whether or not participant would be recommended as a health care provider to family or friends? (time frame: 8-10 weeks post-intervention/control). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05890144, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Jun 2023.