Aims: This study explores the lived experiences of chronic pain among immigrant Indian women in Canada.

Methods: Thirteen immigrant Indian women participated in one-on-one interviews exploring daily experiences of chronic pain.

Results: Using thematic analysis informed by van Manen's phenomenology of practice, four themes emerged: (1) the body in pain, (2) pain in the context of lived and felt space, (3) pain and relationships, and (4) pain and time. Women revealed that their experiences were shaped by gender roles and expectations enforced through culture. Specifically, a dual gender role was identified after immigration, in which women had to balance traditional household responsibilities of family labor and care alongside employment outside the home, exacerbating pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A content development team which consisted of three consultant rheumatologists developed the booklet. Content validation was performed by a panel of evaluators consisted of eleven physicians (four consultant rheumatologists, two clinical specialists, and five medical officers), who were involved in gout management. Face validation was performed by ten patients with gout.

RESULTS: Item-Content Validity Index ranged from 0.9 to 1 with regards to relevancy, clarity, ambiguity and simplicity. Side effects of uricosuric agents were added to the draft based on an evaluator's comment. Item-Face Validity Index was 1, which indicated that all patients were in 100% agreement with all items.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.

METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with T2D from eight publicly-funded hospitals in the Greater Kuala Lumpur region, who had ≥2 outpatient visits within the preceding year and irrespective of treatment regimen, were eligible. The primary outcome was ≥2 treatment target attainment (defined as either HbA1c <7.0%, blood pressure [BP] <130/80 mmHg, or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] <1.8 mmol/L). The secondary outcomes were the individual treatment target, a combination of all three treatment targets, and patterns of GDMT use. To assess for potential heterogeneity of study findings, all outcomes were stratified according to prespecified baseline characteristics namely 1) history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD; yes/no) and 2) clinic type (Diabetes specialist versus General medicine).

RESULTS: Among 5094 patients (mean±SD age 59.0±13.2 years; T2D duration 14.8±9.2 years; HbA1c 8.2±1.9% (66±21 mmol/mol); BMI 29.6±6.2 kg/m2; 45.6% men), 99% were at high/very high cardiorenal risk. Attainment of ≥2 treatment targets was at 18%, being higher in General medicine than in Diabetes specialist clinics (20.8% versus 17.5%; p = 0.039). The overall statin coverage was 90%. More patients with prior ASCVD attained LDL-C <1.4 mmol/L than those without (13.5% versus 8.4%; p<0.001). Use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (13.2% versus 43.2%), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) (1.0% versus 6.2%), and insulin (27.7% versus 58.1%) were lower in General medicine than in Diabetes specialist clinics.