Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications. DESIGN: Citation analysis. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine. RESULTS: On average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy). CONCLUSION: Canada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.

The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. METHODS: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55860.

What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

Building High-Performing Primary Care Systems: After a Decade of Policy Change, Is Canada "Walking the Talk?"

Policy Points Considerable investments have been made to build high-performing primary care systems in Canada. However, little is known about the extent to which change has occurred over the last decade with implementing programs and policies across all 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions. There is significant variation in the degree of implementation of structural features of high-performing primary care systems across Canada. This study provides evidence on the state of primary care reform in Canada and offers insights into the opportunities based on changes that governments elsewhere have made to advance primary care transformation. CONTEXT: Despite significant investments to transform primary care, Canada lags behind its peers in providing timely access to regular doctors or places of care, timely access to care, developing interprofessional teams, and communication across health care settings. This study examines changes over the last decade (2012 to 2021) in policies across 13 provincial and territorial jurisdictions that address the structural features of high-performing primary care systems. METHODS: A multiple comparative case study approach was used to explore changes in primary care delivery across 13 Canadian jurisdictions. Each case consisted of (1) qualitative interviews with academics, provincial health care leaders, and health care professionals and (2) a literature review of policies and innovations. Data for each case were thematically analyzed within and across cases, using 12 structural features of high-performing primary care systems to describe each case and assess changes over time. FINDINGS: The most significant changes include adopting electronic medical records, investments in quality improvement training and support, and developing interprofessional teams. Progress was more limited in implementing primary care governance mechanisms, system coordination, patient enrollment, and payment models. The rate of change was slowest for patient engagement, leadership development, performance measurement, research capacity, and systematic evaluation of innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Progress toward building high-performing primary care systems in Canada has been slow and variable, with limited change in the organization and delivery of primary care. Canada's experience can inform innovation internationally by demonstrating how preexisting policy legacies constrain the possibilities for widespread primary care reform, with progress less pronounced in the attributes that impact physician autonomy. To accelerate primary care transformation in Canada and abroad, a national strategy and performance measurement framework is needed based on meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders. This must be accompanied by targeted funding investments and building strong data infrastructure for performance measurement to support rigorous research.

Impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: protocol for a rapid scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional teams and funding and payment provider arrangements are key attributes of high-performing primary care. Several Canadian jurisdictions have introduced team-based models with different payment models. Despite these investments, the evidence of impact is mixed. This has raised questions about whether team-based primary care models are being implemented to facilitate team collaboration and effectiveness. Thus, we present a protocol for a rapid scoping review to systematically map, synthesise and summarise the existing literature on the impact of provider remuneration mechanisms and extrinsic and intrinsic incentives in team-based primary care. This review will answer three research questions: (1) What is the impact of provider remuneration models on team, patient, provider and system outcomes in primary care?; (2) What extrinsic and intrinsic incentives have been used in interprofessional primary care teams?; and (3) What is the impact of extrinsic and intrinsic team-based incentives on team, patient, provider and system outcomes? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a rapid scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit) and grey literature sources (Google Scholar, Google). This review will consider all empirical studies and full-text English-language articles published between 2000 and 2022. Reviewers will independently perform the literature search, data extraction and synthesis of included studies. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to appraise the quality of evidence. The literature will be synthesised, summarised and mapped to themes that answer the research question of this review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. Findings from this study will be written for publication in an open-access peer-review journal and presented at national and international conferences. Knowledge users are part of the research team and will assist with disseminating findings to the public, clinicians, funders and professional associations.

Comparing primary care Interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams on access to care and health services utilization in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries, including Canada, have introduced primary care reforms to improve health system functioning and value. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between receiving care from interprofessional primary care teams and after-hours access to care, patient-reported walk-in clinic visits and emergency department use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking population-based administrative databases to Ontario's Health Care Experience Survey (HCES) between 2012 and 2018. We adjusted for physician group characteristics as well as individual physician and patient characteristics while assessing the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional teams and the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: As of March 31st, 2015, there were 465 physician groups with HCES respondents of which 177 (38.0%) were interprofessional teams and 288 (62.0%) were non-interprofessional teams in the same blended capitation reimbursement model. In this period, there were 4518 physicians with HCES respondents, of whom 2131 (47.2%) were in interprofessional teams and 2387 (52.8%) were in non-interprofessional teams. There were 10,102 HCES respondents included in this study, of whom 42.4% were in interprofessional teams and 42.3% were in non-interprofessional teams. After adjustment, we found that being in an interprofessional team was associated with an increase in the odds of patients reporting same/next day access to care by 12.0% (OR = 1.12 CI = 1.00 to 1.24 p-value 0.0436) and a decrease in the odds of patients reporting walk-in clinic use by 16% (OR = 0.84 CI = 0.75 to 0.94 p-value 0.0019). After adjustment, there were no significant differences in patient-reported after-hours access to care and emergency department use. CONCLUSIONS: Ontario has invested heavily in interprofessional primary care teams. As compared to patients in non-interprofessional teams, patients in interprofessional teams self-reported more timely access to care and less walk-in clinic use but no significant difference in self-reported access to after-hours care or in emergency department use. For jurisdictions aiming to expand physician voluntary participation in interprofessional teams, our study results inform expectations around access to care and health services utilization.

Nurturing a culture of curiosity in family medicine and primary care: The Section of Researchers' Blueprint 2 (2018-2023).

OBJECTIVE: To describe Blueprint 2 (2018-2023), the 5-year strategic plan launched in 2018 by the Section of Researchers (SOR), as well as its guiding principles and the process used to develop it. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Blueprint 2 was co-created by many stakeholders from across Canada and led by the SOR Council (SORC). The process started with an external, commissioned program evaluation in 2017 of the effect of the first SOR Blueprint (2012-2017). The findings and recommendations arising from the evaluation were presented in a day-long facilitated invitational retreat, hosted by the SORC in September 2017 and involving 40 key stakeholders. METHODS: Blueprint 2 was created using a multi-pronged, participatory, and iterative process to ensure broad input and alignment with current and future opportunities and priorities. REPORT: Blueprint 2 incorporates 4 strategic priority areas, each supported by objectives and actions. The strategic priority areas are membership, capacity building, advocacy, and partnerships. This updated Blueprint provides a useful, membership-driven strategic plan specifically for the SOR. The implementation of its objectives will promote research and quality improvement and contribute to building a culture of curiosity. Blueprint 2 emphasizes research and quality improvement that emanate from the realities of everyday practice and are rooted in everyday work. At its core are patient- and community-oriented approaches; it also contributes to achieving the Quadruple Aim. These outcomes will further the integration of the scholar role into daily practice for family physicians and primary care clinicians and teams. CONCLUSION: The ability of family physicians to identify, study, and cite their own evidence is essential to establishing the value and effect of primary care, including family medicine, in relation to Canadians' health and the Canadian health care system.

Prioritizing and Implementing Primary Care Performance Measures for Ontario.

In the fall of 2014, Health Quality Ontario released A Primary Care Performance Measurement Framework for Ontario. Recognizing the large number of recommended measures and the limited availability of data related to those measures, the Steering Committee for the Primary Care Performance Measurement (PCPM) initiative established a prioritization process to select two subsets of high-value performance measures - one at the system level and one at the practice level. This article describes the prioritization process and its results and outlines the initiatives that have been undertaken to date to implement the PCPM framework and to advance primary care performance measurement and reporting in Ontario. Establishing a framework for primary care measurement and prioritizing system- and practice-level measures are essential steps toward system improvement. Our experience suggests that the process of implementing a performance measurement system is inevitably non-linear and incremental.

Role of Interprofessional primary care teams in preventing avoidable hospitalizations and hospital readmissions in Ontario, Canada: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Improving health system value and efficiency are considered major policy priorities internationally. Ontario has undergone a primary care reform that included introduction of interprofessional teams. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between receiving care from interprofessional versus non-interprofessional primary care teams and ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC) hospitalizations and hospital readmissions. METHODS: Population-based administrative databases were linked to form data extractions of interest between the years of 2003-2005 and 2015-2017 in Ontario, Canada. The data sources were available through ICES. The study design was a retrospective longitudinal cohort. We used a "difference-in-differences" approach for evaluating changes in ACSC hospitalizations and hospital readmissions before and after the introduction of interprofessional team-based primary care while adjusting for physician group, physician and patient characteristics. RESULTS: As of March 31st, 2017, there were a total of 778 physician groups, of which 465 were blended capitation Family Health Organization (FHOs); 177 FHOs (22.8%) were also interprofessional teams and 288 (37%) were more conventional group practices ("non-interprofessional teams"). In this period, there were a total of 13,480 primary care physicians in Ontario of whom 4848 (36%) were affiliated with FHOs-2311 (17.1%) practicing in interprofessional teams and 2537 (18.8%) practicing in non-interprofessional teams. During that same period, there were 475,611 and 618,363 multi-morbid patients in interprofessional teams and non-interprofessional teams respectively out of a total of 2,920,990 multi-morbid adult patients in Ontario. There was no difference in change over time in ACSC admissions between interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams between the pre- and post intervention periods. There were no statistically significant changes in all cause hospital readmission s between the post- and pre-intervention periods for interprofessional and non-interprofessional teams. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings indicate that the introduction of interprofessional team-based primary care was not associated with changes in ACSC hospitalization or hospital readmissions. The findings point for the need to couple interprofessional team-based care with other enablers of a strong primary care system to improve health services utilization efficiency.

Physician group, physician and patient characteristics associated with joining interprofessional team-based primary care in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: Countries throughout the world have been experimenting with new models to deliver primary care. We investigated physician group, physician and patient characteristics associated with voluntarily joining team-based primary care in Ontario. METHODS: This cross-sectional study linked provincial administrative datasets to form data extractions of interest over time with the earliest in 2005 and the latest in 2013. We generated mixed, generalized chi-square and multivariate models to compare the characteristics of teams and non-teams, both with blended capitation reimbursement, and to examine characteristics associated with joining a team. RESULTS: Having more physicians per group, being a female physician, having more years under the blended capitation model, having more patients in the lowest income quintile and more patients residing in rural areas were positively associated with joining a team. Being a female physician and having more patients who are males, recent immigrants and living in rural areas were positively associated with the outcome of joining teams in the late phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings indicate that there are differences in physician group, physician and patient characteristics when comparing teams to non-teams. Other jurisdictions aiming to expand physician participation in interprofessional care should note those factors. Researchers looking to understand the impact of team-based care should be aware of pre-existing differences and the need to address selection bias associated with participation in team-based care.

Intensive monitoring for post-transplant diabetes mellitus and treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy.

AIM: Current monitoring practices fail to diagnose patients with post-transplant hyperglycaemia and tend to delay initiation of treatment, which potentially results in adverse graft and morbidity outcomes. This real-world study set out to assess the impact on insulin resistance indices of a new clinical pathway for diagnosis and treatment of hyperglycaemia following renal transplantation. METHODS: A hundred and forty-seven adult renal transplant recipients, without pre-existing diabetes, from a single centre were included. Patients transplanted between January 2008 to September 2015 formed the historical cohort. Patients transplanted between October 2015 and February 2018 were subject to a new clinical pathway - if they had fasting blood sugar levels more than 7 mmol/L or random blood glucose levels more than 11.1 mmol/L, they had early introduction of oral therapy, using the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin. RESULTS: In the historical cohort, 19.8% were diagnosed with PTDM, compared to 46.3% in the protocol cohort. Amongst patients with PTDM, there was a significant difference in HOMA-IR (p = 0.02) between the historical cohort (median HOMA-IR 3.33) and the protocol cohort (median HOMA-IR 2.21). There was a significant difference at each time point (0,1,2-h measurements) of blood glucose levels form oral glucose tolerance testing between patients with and without PTDM in the historical cohort (p < 0.001), but no difference between patients in the protocol cohort. CONCLUSION: Detection of PTDM was higher with the new clinical pathway. Early treatment of hyperglycaemia resulted in better insulin resistance scores. Larger prospective controlled studies focussing on early detection and management of PTDM with linagliptin are warranted.

Establishing a Primary Care Performance Measurement Framework for Ontario.

A systematic approach to Primary Care Performance Measurement is needed to provide useful information on a regular basis to inform planning, management and quality improvement at both the practice and system levels. Based on an environmental scan, a summit of primary care stakeholders and a stakeholder survey and supported by Measures and Technical Working Groups, the Ontario Primary Care Performance Measurement Steering Committee, representing 20 stakeholder organizations, identified system- and practice-level measurement priorities and related specific performance measures across nine domains of primary care performance. This initiative addressed measures' selection and technical specification. It did not include data collection. Lessons learned in Ontario can assist other jurisdictions developing frameworks for monitoring and reporting on primary care performance. Cross-country alignment could lead to a coordinated approach to measure and target areas for primary care performance improvement in Canada.

Primary care physicians' perspectives on facilitating older patients' access to community support services: Qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how family physicians facilitate older patients' access to community support services (CSSs) and to identify similarities and differences across primary health care (PHC) models. DESIGN: Qualitative, multiple-case study design using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Four models of PHC delivery, specifically 2 family health teams (FHTs), 4 non-FHTs family health organizations, 4 fee-for-service practices, and 2 community health centres in urban Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Purposeful sampling of 23 family physicians in solo and small and large group practices within the 4 models of PHC. METHODS: A multiple-case study approach was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted and data were analyzed using within- and cross-case analysis. Case study tactics to ensure study rigour included memos and an audit trail, investigator triangulation, and the use of multiple, rather than single, case studies. MAIN FINDINGS: Three main themes were identified: consulting and communicating with the health care team to create linkages; linking patients and families to CSSs; and relying on out-of-date resources and ineffective search strategies for information on CSSs. All participants worked with their team members; however, those in FHTs and community health centres generally had a broader range of health care providers available to assist them. Physicians relied on home-care case managers to help make linkages to CSSs. Physicians recommended the development of an easily searchable, online database containing available CSSs. CONCLUSION: This study shows the importance of interprofessional teamwork in primary care settings to facilitate linkages of older patients to CSSs. The study also provides insight into the strategies physicians use to link older persons to CSSs and their recommendations for change. This understanding can be used to develop resources and approaches to better support physicians in making appropriate linkages to CSSs.

Primary Health Care Providers' Perspectives: Facilitating Older Patients' Access to Community Support Services.

The purpose of the study examined in this article was to understand how non-physician health care professionals working in Canadian primary health care settings facilitate older persons' access to community support services (CSSs). The use of CSSs has positive impacts for clients, yet they are underused from lack of awareness. Using a qualitative description approach, we interviewed 20 health care professionals from various disciplines and primary health care models about the processes they use to link older patients to CSSs. Participants collaborated extensively with interprofessional colleagues within and outside their organizations to find relevant CSSs. They actively engaged patients and families in making these linkages and ensured follow-up. It was troubling to find that they relied on out-of-date resources and inefficient search strategies to find CSSs. Our findings can be used to develop resources and approaches to better support primary health care providers in linking older adults to relevant CSSs.

Primary care in Ontario, Canada: New proposals after 15 years of reform.

Primary care has proven to be extremely difficult to reform in Canada because of the original social compact between the state and physicians that led to the introduction of universal medical care insurance in the 1960s. However, in the past decade, the provincial government of Ontario has led the way in Canada in funding a suite of primary care practice models, some of which differ substantially from traditional solo and group physician practices based on fee-for-service payment. Independent evaluations show some positive improvements in patient care. Nonetheless, the Ontario government's large investment in the reform combined with high expectations concerning improved performance and the deteriorating fiscal position of the province's finances have led to major conflict with organized medicine over physician budgets and the government's consideration of an even more radical restructuring of the system of primary care in the province.

Examining Primary Healthcare Performance through a Triple Aim Lens.

PURPOSE: This study sought to apply a Triple Aim framework to the measurement and evaluation of primary healthcare (PHC) team performance. METHODS: Triple Aim components were populated with 10 dimensions derived from survey and health administrative data for 17 Family Health Teams (FHTs) in Ontario, Canada. Bivariate analyses and rankings of sites examined the relationships among dimensions and among Triple Aim components. RESULTS: Readily available measures to fully populate the Triple Aim framework were lacking in FHTs. Within sites, there was little consistency in performance across the Triple Aim components (health, patient experience and cost). CONCLUSIONS: More and better measures are needed that can be readily used to examine the Triple Aim performance in PHC teams. FHTs, in this study, are partially achieving Triple Aim goals; however, there was a lack of consistency in performance. It is essential to collect appropriate measures and attend to performance across all components of the Triple Aim.

Primary Care Practice Reports: Administrative Data Profiles for Identifying and Prioritizing Areas for Quality Improvement.

Information to help guide quality improvement activities in primary care should be readily available, routinely updated and include comparisons across groups, regions and jurisdictions. Primary care practice reports, developed jointly by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and Health Quality Ontario, is one such effort. These data include practice demographics, the prevalence of common chronic conditions, the use of health services and measures of chronic disease prevention and management. All Ontario primary care physicians can register for the profiles online using a secure logon; the profiles are available only to them. Enhancements under development include new formats, targets and tools to support quality improvement.