Global impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and reproductive health services: An international comparative study on primary care from the INTRePID Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted sexual and reproductive health (SRH) visits. DESIGN: An ecological study comparing SRH services volume in different countries before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING: Seven countries from the INTernational ConsoRtium of Primary Care BIg Data Researchers (INTRePID) across four continents. POPULATION: Over 3.8 million SRH visits to primary care physicians in Australia, China, Canada, Norway, Singapore, Sweden and the USA. METHODS: Difference in average SRH monthly visits before and during the pandemic, with negative binomial regression modelling to compare predicted and observed number of visits during the pandemic for SRH visits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Monthly number of visits to primary care physicians from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: During the pandemic, the average volume of monthly SRH visits increased in Canada (15.6%, 99% CI 8.1-23.0%) where virtual care was pronounced. China, Singapore, Sweden and the USA experienced a decline (-56.5%, 99% CI -74.5 to -38.5%; -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%; -19.4%, 99% CI -28.3 to -10.6%; and -22.7%, 99% CI -38.8 to -6.5%, respectively); while Australia and Norway showed insignificant changes (6.5%, 99% CI -0.7 to -13.8% and 1.7%, 99% CI -6.4 to -9.8%). The countries that maintained (Australia, Norway) or surpassed (Canada) pre-pandemic visit rates had the greatest use of virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: In-person SRH visits to primary care decreased during the pandemic. Virtual care seemed to counterbalance that decline. Although cervical cancer screening appeared insensitive to virtual care, strategies such as incorporating self-collected samples for HPV testing may provide a solution in a future pandemic.

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.

Cowboy poetry: finding and using safe venues for emotional expression.

Mental health problems still carry heavy stigma in rural communities. Sometimes a person suffering a mental, emotional, or behavioral health issue won't seek care for fear of others knowing about their personal issues. Historically, some rural communities created safe venues for emotional expression. One example is cowboy poetry, which allowed the cowboy poet to express sadness, disappointment and heartache in a safe environment. There is an opportunity for rural communities to imagine and reimagine safe venues for mental, emotional, and behavioral health; maybe cowboy poetry, maybe other ways to connect. Today, it is crucial for rural communities to do all they can to address mental health in the usual clinic settings, and by creating other safe venues for emotional expression.

Increasing Capacity for Treatment of Opioid Use Disorder in Rural Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine in primary care practices (PCPs). Barriers that slow implementation of this treatment include inadequately trained staff. This study aimed to increase the number of rural PCPs providing OUD treatment with buprenorphine. This evaluation describes the impact of a practice team training on the implementation and delivery of OUD treatment with buprenorphine in PCPs of rural Colorado. METHODS: Implementing Technology and Medication Assisted Treatment Team Training in Rural Colorado (IT MATTTRs) was a multilevel implementation study that included a practice-focused intervention to improve awareness, adoption, and use of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. Participating PCP teams received the IT MATTTRs Practice Team Training and support. Practices' implementation of treatment components was assessed before and after training. Practice-reported and population-level data from the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program were obtained to describe changes in delivery of treatment after training. RESULTS: Forty-two practices received team training. Practices reported an average of 4.7 treatment-related components in place at baseline compared with 13.0 at 12-month follow-up (F[2,56] = 31.17, P <.001). The proportion of participating practices providing or referring patients for treatment increased from 18.8% to 74.4%. The increase in number of people with a prescription for buprenorphine was significantly greater in the study region over a 4-year period compared with the rest of the state (Wald χ2 = 15.73, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IT MATTTRs training for PCP teams in OUD treatment with buprenorphine addressed elements beyond clinician waiver training to make implementation feasible and effectively increased implementation and delivery of this treatment in rural Colorado.

Shared Language for Shared Work in Population Health.

People working on behalf of population health, community health, or public health often experience confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of these and other common terms-the similarities and differences and how they bear on the tasks and division of labor for care delivery and public health. Shared language must be clear enough to help, not hinder people working together as they ultimately come to mutual understanding of roles, responsibilities, and actions in their joint work. Based on an iterative lexicon development process, the authors developed and propose a definitional framework as an aid to navigating among related population and community health terms. These terms are defined, similarities and differences clarified, and then organized into 3 categories that reflect goals, realities, and ways to get the job done. Goals include (a) health as well-being for persons, (b) population health as that goal expressed in measurable terms for groups, and (c) community health as population health for particular communities of interest, geography, or other defining characteristic-groups with shared identity and particular systemic influences on health. Realities are social determinants as influences, health disparities as effects, and health equity as both a goal and a design principle. Ways to get the job done include health care delivery systems for enrollees and public health in population-based civic activities-with a broad zone of collaboration where streams of effort converge in partnership with served communities. This map of terms can enable people to move forward together in a broad zone of collaboration for health with less confusion, ambiguity, and conflict.

The who, the what, and the how: A description of strategies and lessons learned to expand access to medications for opioid use disorder in rural America.

Access to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) in rural areas within the United States remains a challenge. Providers must complete 8-24 h of training to obtain the Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) 2000 waiver to have the legal authority to prescribe buprenorphine for OUD. Over the last 4 years, we executed five dissemination and implementation grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to study and address barriers to providing Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Treatment (MOUD), including psychosocial supports, in rural primary care practices in different states. We found that obtaining the DATA 2000 waiver is just one component of meaningful treatment using MOUD, and that the waiver provides a one-time benchmark that often does not address other significant barriers that providers face daily. In this commentary, we summarize our initiatives and the common lessons learned across our grants and offer recommendations on how primary care providers can be better supported to expand access to MOUD in rural America.

Reducing Cardiovascular Disparities Through Community-Engaged Implementation Research: A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop Report.

Cardiovascular disparities remain pervasive in the United States. Unequal disease burden is evident among population groups based on sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, nativity, or geography. Despite the significant declines in cardiovascular disease mortality rates in all demographic groups during the last 50 years, large disparities remain by sex, race, ethnicity, and geography. Recent data from modeling studies, linked micromap plots, and small-area analyses also demonstrate prominent variation in cardiovascular disease mortality rates across states and counties, with an especially high disease burden in the southeastern United States and Appalachia. Despite these continued disparities, few large-scale intervention studies have been conducted in these high-burden populations to examine the feasibility of reducing or eliminating cardiovascular disparities. To address this challenge, on June 22 and 23, 2017, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened experts from a broad range of biomedical, behavioral, environmental, implementation, and social science backgrounds to summarize the current state of knowledge of cardiovascular disease disparities and propose intervention strategies aligned with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute mission. This report presents the themes, challenges, opportunities, available resources, and recommended actions discussed at the workshop.

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.

Institutional review board training when patients and community members are engaged as researchers.

Background: Patient engagement efforts often rely on a participatory research approach, which means engaging patients and community members in all aspects of research. As research team members, they require familiarity with the principles of human subject protection, privacy, and institutional review boards (IRB). However, the time required for individual IRB training may be a barrier to engaging community members in participatory research. As more community members participated in research, the State Networks of Colorado Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) was faced with finding a balance between including community members as part of the research team and the significant time commitment and institutional requirements for human subjects research oversight. Objective: Design and implement a community training on human subject protection in research. Methods: The SNOCAP team worked with the leadership from the Colorado Multi-Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) to develop a training programme that included the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects. Results: The final training programme was based on the core principles of the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Privacy was taught using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) national guidelines. Conclusions: The members of the High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council were fully engaged in developing the training programme, as well as in the training itself. They were committed to the principles and guidelines for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects. Patients and community members have become a critical part of our research team. They understand the principles of human subjects protection and privacy and incorporate these principles into their research activities.

The North American Primary Care Research Group's Patient and Clinician Engagement Program (PaCE): Demystifying patient engagement through a dyad model.

Background: Community engagement in research is essential for translating the best evidence into community and clinical practice to improve the health and well-being of the population. Objective: North American Primary Care Research Group's Patient and Clinician Engagement Program (PaCE) program aims to develop a robust community of patients and primary care providers with knowledge and understanding of the unique features of patient-centred outcomes research related to primary care in order to advocate for and engage in research. Methods: PaCE employs a 'dyad' model in which a patient and a primary care provider collaborate to learn about and engage in primary care, primary care research, grant review, proposal development and advocacy. A series of educational trainings held in conjunction with national primary care conferences, international webinars and local symposia make up the foundation of the PaCE curriculum. Results and Conclusions: To date, 186 participants have completed the full-day, interactive PaCE training, and more than 250 people have participated in PaCE webinars and/or symposia. A 6-month follow-up sent to PaCE participants evaluates engagement activities following training.

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.

Does engagement matter? The impact of patient and community engagement on implementation of cardiovascular health materials in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Engaging patients and community members in healthcare implementation, research and evaluation has become more popular over the past two decades. Despite the growing interest in patient engagement, there is scant evidence of its impact and importance. Boot Camp Translation (BCT) is one evidence-based method of engaging communities in research. The purpose of this report is to describe the uptake by primary care practices of cardiovascular disease prevention materials produced through four different local community engagement efforts using BCT. METHODS: EvidenceNOW Southwest (ENSW) was a randomized trial to increase cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in primary care practices. Because of its study design, Four BCTs were conducted, and the materials created were made available to participating practices in the "enhanced" study arm. As a result, ENSW offered one of the first opportunities to explore the impact of the BCT method by describing the uptake by primary care practices of health messages and materials created locally using the BCT process. Analysis compared uptake of locally translated BCT products vs. all other products among practices based on geography, type of practice, and local BCT. RESULTS: Within the enhanced arm of the study that included BCT, 69 urban and 13 rural practices participated with 9 being federally qualified community health centers, 14 hospital owned and 59 clinician owned. Sixty-three practices had 5 or fewer clinicians. Two hundred and ten separate orders for materials were placed by 43 of the 82 practices. While practices ordered a wide variety of BCT products, they were more likely to order materials developed by their local BCT. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients and community members generated common and unique messages and materials for cardiovascular disease prevention relevant to their regional and community culture. Primary care practices preferred the materials created in their region. The greater uptake of locally created materials over non-local materials supports the use of patient engagement methods such as BCT to increase the implementation and delivery of guideline-based care. Yes, patient and community engagement matters. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND IRB: Trial registration was prospectively registered on July 31, 2015 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02515578, protocol identifier 15-0403). The project was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and the University of New Mexico Human Research Protections Office.