Primary Care Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward With Reflections on NAPCRG's First 50 Years.

NAPCRG celebrated 50 years of leadership and service at its 2022 meeting. A varied team of primary care investigators, clinicians, learners, patients, and community members reflected on the organization's past, present, and future. Started in 1972 by a small group of general practice researchers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, NAPCRG has evolved into an international, interprofessional, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational group devoted to improving health and health care through primary care research. NAPCRG provides a nurturing home to researchers and teams working in partnership with individuals, families, and communities. The organization builds upon enduring values to create partnerships, advance research methods, and nurture a community of contributors. NAPCRG has made foundational contributions, including identifying the need for primary care research to inform primary care practice, practice-based research networks, qualitative and mixed-methods research, community-based participatory research, patient safety, practice transformation, and partnerships with patients and communities. Landmark documents have helped define classification systems for primary care, responsible research with communities, the central role of primary care in health care systems, opportunities to revitalize generalist practice, and shared strategies to build the future of family medicine. The future of health and health care depends upon strengthening primary care and primary care research with stronger support, infrastructure, training, and workforce. New technologies offer opportunities to advance research, enhance care, and improve outcomes. Stronger partnerships can empower primary care research with patients and communities and increase commitments to diversity and quality care for all. NAPCRG offers a home for all partners in this work.

Collaborative governance of postgraduate medical education: Can it be achieved?

Faced with the need to modernize and improve the postgraduate medical education experience and to maintain the high quality of physicians that Canadians expect, in 2010, four organizations -Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC); Collège des Médecins du Québec (CMQ); College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC); and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) formed a consortium to conduct a review of Postgraduate Medical Education (PGME) in Canada. In 2012, the Consortium published the Future of Medical Education in Canada Postgraduate (FMEC PG) project's 10 recommendations for change in PGME. One of these recommendations was to 'Establish Effective Collaborative Governance in PGME'. The recommendation stated- 'Recognizing the complexity of PGME and the health delivery system within which it operates, integrate the multiple bodies (regulatory and certifying colleges, educational and healthcare institutions) that play a role in PGME into a collaborative governance structure in order to achieve efficiency, reduce redundancy, and provide clarity on strategic directions and decisions' The purpose of this paper is to describe the creation, function and dissolution of a collaborative governance structure within the complex system of PGME and the challenges that were faced in its sustainability. The lessons learned are applicable internationally where integration of multiple organizations is being attempted. A fundamental question remains as to whether a consensus-based decision-making process can ever be achieved among organizations with overlapping mandates and in some cases, hierarchical structures?

Understanding compassion in family medicine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and physicians have traditionally valued compassion; however, there is concern that physician compassion has declined with the increasing emphasis on science and technology in medicine. Although the literature on compassion is growing, very little is known about how family physicians experience compassion in their work. AIM: To explore family physicians' capacity for and experiences of compassion in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study designed using a phenomenological approach in rural and urban Ontario, Canada. METHOD: In-depth interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, followed by independent and team coding. An iterative and interpretive analysis was conducted using immersion and crystallisation techniques. Purposive sampling recruited 22 participants (nine males and 13 females aged 26-64 years) that included family medicine residents from Western University (n = 6), and family physicians practising <5 years (n = 7) or >10 years (n = 9) in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: From the data, the authors derived the Compassion Trichotomy as a theoretical model to describe three interrelated areas that determine the evolution or devolution of compassion experienced by family physicians: motivation (core values), capacity (energy), and connection (relationship). CONCLUSION: The Compassion Trichotomy highlights the importance and interdependence in physician compassion of motivation (personal reflection and values), capacity (awareness and regulation of energy, emotion, and cognition), and connection (sustained patient-physician relationship). This model may assist practising family physicians, educators, and researchers to explore how compassion development might enhance physician effectiveness and satisfaction.

Evaluating complex transformation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed case study of the evaluation strategies of a complex, multi-faceted response to a public health emergency: drug-related overdose deaths. It sets out the challenges of evaluating such a complex response and how they were overcome. It provides a pragmatic example of the rationale and issues faced to address the what, the why and particularly the how of the evaluation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The case study overviews British Columbia's Provincial Response to the Overdose Public Health Emergency, and the aims and scope of its evaluation. It then outlines the conceptual approach taken to the evaluation, setting out key methodological challenges in evaluating large-scale, multi-level, multisectoral change. FINDINGS: The evaluation is developmental and summative, utilization focused and system informed. Defining the scope of the evaluation required a strong level of engagement with government leads, grantees and other evaluation stakeholders. Mixed method evaluation will be used to capture the complex pattern of relationships that have informed the overdose response. Working alongside people with drug use experience to both plan and inform the evaluation is critical to its success. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study builds on a growing literature on evaluating large-scale and complex service transformation, providing a practical example of this.

How Equity-Oriented Health Care Affects Health: Key Mechanisms and Implications for Primary Health Care Practice and Policy.

Policy Points A consensus regarding the need to orient health systems to address inequities is emerging, with much of this discussion targeting population health interventions and indicators. We know less about applying these approaches to primary health care. This study empirically demonstrates that providing more equity-oriented health care (EOHC) in primary health care, including trauma- and violence-informed, culturally safe, and contextually tailored care, predicts improved health outcomes across time for people living in marginalizing conditions. This is achieved by enhancing patients' comfort and confidence in their care and their own confidence in preventing and managing health problems. This promising new evidence suggests that equity-oriented interventions at the point of care can begin to shift inequities in health outcomes for those with the greatest need. CONTEXT: Significant attention has been directed toward addressing health inequities at the population health and systems levels, yet little progress has been made in identifying approaches to reduce health inequities through clinical care, particularly in a primary health care context. Although the provision of equity-oriented health care (EOHC) is widely assumed to lead to improvements in patients' health outcomes, little empirical evidence supports this claim. To remedy this, we tested whether more EOHC predicts more positive patient health outcomes and identified selected mediators of this relationship. METHODS: Our analysis uses longitudinal data from 395 patients recruited from 4 primary health care clinics serving people living in marginalizing conditions. The participants completed 4 structured interviews composed of self-report measures and survey questions over a 2-year period. Using path analysis techniques, we tested a hypothesized model of the process through which patients' perceptions of EOHC led to improvements in self-reported health outcomes (quality of life, chronic pain disability, and posttraumatic stress [PTSD] and depressive symptoms), including particular covariates of health outcomes (age, gender, financial strain, experiences of discrimination). FINDINGS: Over a 24-month period, higher levels of EOHC predicted greater patient comfort and confidence in the health care patients received, leading to increased confidence to prevent and manage their health problems, which, in turn, improved health outcomes (depressive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, chronic pain, and quality of life). In addition, financial strain and experiences of discrimination had significant negative effects on all health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to demonstrate empirically that providing more EOHC predicts better patient health outcomes over time. At a policy level, this research supports investments in equity-focused organizational and provider-level processes in primary health care as a means of improving patients' health, particularly for those living in marginalizing conditions. Whether these results are robust in different patient groups and across a broader range of health care contexts requires further study.

Disruption as opportunity: Impacts of an organizational health equity intervention in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: The health care sector has a significant role to play in fostering equity in the context of widening global social and health inequities. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the process and impacts of implementing an organizational-level health equity intervention aimed at enhancing capacity to provide equity-oriented health care. METHODS: The theoretically-informed and evidence-based intervention known as 'EQUIP' included educational components for staff, and the integration of three key dimensions of equity-oriented care: cultural safety, trauma- and violence-informed care, and tailoring to context. The intervention was implemented at four Canadian primary health care clinics committed to serving marginalized populations including people living in poverty, those facing homelessness, and people living with high levels of trauma, including Indigenous peoples, recent immigrants and refugees. A mixed methods design was used to examine the impacts of the intervention on the clinics' organizational processes and priorities, and on staff. RESULTS: Engagement with the EQUIP intervention prompted increased awareness and confidence related to equity-oriented health care among staff. Importantly, the EQUIP intervention surfaced tensions that mirrored those in the wider community, including those related to racism, the impacts of violence and trauma, and substance use issues. Surfacing these tensions was disruptive but led to focused organizational strategies, for example: working to address structural and interpersonal racism; improving waiting room environments; and changing organizational policies and practices to support harm reduction. The impact of the intervention was enhanced by involving staff from all job categories, developing narratives about the socio-historical context of the communities and populations served, and feeding data back to the clinics about key health issues in the patient population (e.g., levels of depression, trauma symptoms, and chronic pain). However, in line with critiques of complex interventions, EQUIP may not have been maximally disruptive. Organizational characteristics (e.g., funding and leadership) and characteristics of intervention delivery (e.g., timeframe and who delivered the intervention components) shaped the process and impact. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that organizations should anticipate and plan for various types of disruptions, while maximizing opportunities for ownership of the intervention by those within the organization. Our findings further suggest that equity-oriented interventions be paced for intense delivery over a relatively short time frame, be evaluated, particularly with data that can be made available on an ongoing basis, and explicitly include a harm reduction lens.

Patient vs. Community Engagement: Emerging Issues.

BACKGROUND: The value proposition of including patients at each step of the research process is that patient perspectives and preferences can have a positive impact on both the science and the outcomes of comparative effectiveness research. How to accomplish engagement and the extent to which approaches to community engagement inform strategies for effective patient engagement need to be examined to address conducting and accelerating comparative effectiveness research. OBJECTIVES: To examine how various perspectives and diverse training lead investigators and patients to conflicting positions on how best to advance patient engagement. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative methods were used to collect perspectives and models of engagement from a diverse group of patients, researchers and clinicians. The project culminated with a workshop involving these stakeholders. The workshop used a novel approach, combining World Café and Future Search techniques, to compare and contrast aspects of patient engagement and community engagement. SUBJECTS: Participants included patients, researchers, and clinicians. MEASURES: Group and workshop discussions provided the consensus on topics related to patient and community engagement. RESULTS: Participants developed and refined a framework that compares and contrasts features associated with patient and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient and community engagement may share a similar approach to engagement based on trust and mutual benefit, there may be distinctive aspects that require a unique lexicon, strategies, tactics, and activities.

Engaging with communities, engaging with patients: amendment to the NAPCRG 1998 Policy Statement on Responsible Research With Communities.

Background: In 1998, the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) adopted a groundbreaking Policy Statement endorsing responsible participatory research (PR) with communities. Since that time, PR gained prominence in primary care research. Objectives: To reconsider the original 1998 Policy Statement in light of increased uptake of PR, and suggest future directions and applications for PR in primary care. This work contributed to an updated Policy Statement endorsed by NAPCRG in 2015. Methods: 32 university and 30 community NAPCRG-affiliated research partners, convened a workshop to document lessons learned about implementing processes and principles of PR. This document emerged from that session and reflection and discussion regarding the original Policy Statement, the emerging PR literature, and our own experiences. Results: The foundational principles articulated in the 1998 Policy Statement remain relevant to the current PR environment. Lessons learned since its publication include that the maturation of partnerships is facilitated by participatory processes that support increased community responsibility for research projects, and benefits generated through PR extend beyond research outcomes. Future directions that will move forward the field of PR in primary care include: (i) improve assessment of PR processes to better delineate the links between how PR teams work together and diverse PR outcomes, (ii) increase the number of models incorporating PR into translational research from project inception to dissemination, and (iii) increase application of PR approaches that support patient engagement in clinical settings to patient-provider relationship and practice change research. Conclusion: PR has markedly altered the manner in which primary care research is undertaken in partnership with communities and its principles and philosophies continue to offer means to assure that research results and processes improve the health of all communities.

Using systems thinking to support clinical system transformation.

Purpose - The British Columbia Ministry of Health's Clinical Care Management initiative was used as a case study to better understand large-scale change (LSC) within BC's health system. Using a complex system framework, the purpose of this paper is to examine mechanisms that enable and constrain the implementation of clinical guidelines across various clinical settings. Design/methodology/approach - Researchers applied a general model of complex adaptive systems plus two specific conceptual frameworks (realist evaluation and system dynamics mapping) to define and study enablers and constraints. Focus group sessions and interviews with clinicians, executives, managers and board members were validated through an online survey. Findings - The functional themes for managing large-scale clinical change included: creating a context to prepare clinicians for health system transformation initiatives; promoting shared clinical leadership; strengthening knowledge management, strategic communications and opportunities for networking; and clearing pathways through the complexity of a multilevel, dynamic system. Research limitations/implications - The action research methodology was designed to guide continuing improvement of implementation. A sample of initiatives was selected; it was not intended to compare and contrast facilitators and barriers across all initiatives and regions. Similarly, evaluating the results or process of guideline implementation was outside the scope; the methods were designed to enable conversations at multiple levels - policy, management and practice - about how to improve implementation. The study is best seen as a case study of LSC, offering a possible model for replication by others and a tool to shape further dialogue. Practical implications - Recommended action-oriented strategies included engaging local champions; supporting local adaptation for implementation of clinical guidelines; strengthening local teams to guide implementation; reducing change fatigue; ensuring adequate resources; providing consistent communication especially for front-line care providers; and supporting local teams to demonstrate the clinical value of the guidelines to their colleagues. Originality/value - Bringing a complex systems perspective to clinical guideline implementation resulted in a clear understanding of the challenges involved in LSC.

A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects.

BACKGROUND: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers and community stakeholders form equitable partnerships to tackle issues related to community health improvement and knowledge production. Our 2012 realist review of CBPR outcomes reported long-term effects that were touched upon but not fully explained in the retained literature. To further explore such effects, interviews were conducted with academic and community partners of partnerships retained in the review. Realist methodology was used to increase the understanding of what supports partnership synergy in successful long-term CBPR partnerships, and to further document how equitable partnerships can result in numerous benefits including the sustainability of relationships, research and solutions. METHODS: Building on our previous realist review of CBPR, we contacted the authors of longitudinal studies of academic-community partnerships retained in the review. Twenty-four participants (community members and researchers) from 11 partnerships were interviewed. Realist logic of analysis was used, involving middle-range theory, context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOcs) and the concept of the 'ripple effect'. RESULTS: The analysis supports the central importance of developing and strengthening partnership synergy through trust. The ripple effect concept in conjunction with CMOcs showed that a sense of trust amongst CBPR members was a prominent mechanism leading to partnership sustainability. This in turn resulted in population-level outcomes including: (a) sustaining collaborative efforts toward health improvement; (b) generating spin-off projects; and (c) achieving systemic transformations. CONCLUSION: These results add to other studies on improving the science of CBPR in partnerships with a high level of power-sharing and co-governance. Our results suggest sustaining CBPR and achieving unanticipated benefits likely depend on trust-related mechanisms and a continuing commitment to power-sharing. These findings have implications for building successful CBPR partnerships to address challenging public health problems and the complex assessment of outcomes.

Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a critical review describing key strategies supporting development of participatory research (PR) teams to engage partners for creation and translation of action-oriented knowledge. METHODS: Sources are four leading PR practitioners identified via bibliometric analysis. Authors' publications were identified in January 1995-October 2009 in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science and CAB databases, and books. Works were limited to those with a process description describing a research project and practitioners were first, second, third, or last author. RESULTS: Adapting and applying the "Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects" to retained records identified five key strategies: developing advisory committees of researchers and intended research users; developing research agreements; using formal and informal group facilitation techniques; hiring co-researchers/partners from community; and ensuring frequent communication. Other less frequently mentioned strategies were also identified. CONCLUSION: This review is the first time these guidelines were used to identify key strategies supporting PR projects. They proved effective at identifying and evaluating engagement strategies as reported by completed research projects. Adapting these guidelines identified gaps where the tool was unable to assess fundamental PR elements of power dynamics, equity of resources, and member turnover. Our resulting template serves as a new tool to measure partnerships.

Critical reflections on realist review: insights from customizing the methodology to the needs of participatory research assessment.

Realist review has increased in popularity as a methodology for complex intervention assessment. Our experience suggests that the process of designing a realist review requires its customization to areas under investigation. To elaborate on this idea, we first describe the logic underpinning realist review and then present critical reflections on our application experience, organized in seven areas. These are the following: (1) the challenge of identifying middle range theory; (2) addressing heterogeneity and lack of conceptual clarity; (3) the challenge of appraising the quality of complex evidence; (4) the relevance of capturing unintended outcomes; (5) understanding the process of context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configuring; (6) incorporating middle-range theory in the CMO configuration process; and (7) using middle range theory to advance the conceptualization of outcomes - both visible and seemingly 'hidden'. One conclusion from our experience is that the degree of heterogeneity of the evidence base will determine whether theory can drive the development of review protocols from the outset, or will follow only after an intense period of data immersion. We hope that presenting a critical reflection on customizing realist review will convey how the methodology can be tailored to the often complex and idiosyncratic features of health research, leading to innovative evidence syntheses.