Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

Exploring behaviour change in general practice consultations: A realist approach.

OBJECTIVES: While general practice involves supporting patients to modify their behaviour, General Practitioners (GPs) vary in their approach to behaviour change during consultations. We aimed to identify mechanisms supporting GPs to undertake successful behaviour change in consultations for people with T2DM by exploring (a) the role of GPs in behaviour change, (b) what happens in GP consultations that supports or impedes behaviour change and (c) how context moderates the behaviour change consultation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with academic clinicians (n = 13), GPs (n = 7) and patients with T2DM (n = 16) across Australia. Data were analysed thematically using a realist evaluation approach. RESULTS: Perspectives about the role of GPs were highly variable, ranging from the provision of test results and information to a relational approach towards shared goals. A GP-patient relationship that includes collaboration, continuity and patient-driven care may contribute to a sense of successful change. Different patient and GP characteristics were perceived to moderate the effectiveness and experience of behaviour change consultations. DISCUSSION: When patient factors are recognised in consultations, a relational approach becomes possible and priorities around behaviour change, that might be missed in a transactional approach, can be identified. Therefore, GP skills for engaging patients are linked to a person-centred approach.

What are the research priorities for optimising the safe and effective use of opioids in Australian general practice?

INTRODUCTION: Persistent high rates of prescription opioid use and harms remain a concern in Australia, Europe and North America. Research priority setting can inform the research agenda, strategic responses and evidence-based interventions. The objective of this study was to establish research priorities related to the safe and effective use of prescription opioids in general practice. METHODS: Consumers, clinicians and policy makers were invited to participate in a structured consensus workshop in May 2021. A modified nominal group technique was used to explore research priorities for the safe and effective use of opioids in Australian general practice. Research priorities were identified, consolidated and prioritised using a structured process. RESULTS: Seventeen consumer, medical, pharmacy, nursing, allied health and policy participants generated 26 consolidated priorities across three domains: (i) consumer-focused priorities; (ii) clinician and practice-focused priorities; and (iii) system and policy-focused priorities. The highest ranked research priorities in each of the domains were consumer characteristics that influence opioid prescribing and outcomes, opioid deprescribing strategies, and system-level barriers to prescribing alternatives to opioids, in the consumer, clinician and practice, and system and policy domains, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The priorities reflect opportunities for research priority setting within Australian general practice. The priorities provide a map for future qualitative and quantitative research that will inform safe and effective opioid prescribing.

Do preventative care guidelines emphasize behaviour change? A content analysis of three commonly used Australian general practice guidelines.

RATIONALE: Preventive health is a core part of primary care clinical practice and it is critical for both disease prevention and reducing the consequences of chronic disease. In primary care, the 5As framework is often used to guide behaviour change consultations for smoking, nutrition, alcohol use and physical activity. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to analyze the emphasis placed on each 5As term in commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice and compare this to behaviour change terms/concepts essential to effective consultations. METHOD: A content analysis was undertaken to explore frequency of 5A terms and key behaviour change concepts/terms chapter-by-chapter across the three most commonly used guidelines in Australian general practice. RESULTS: The prevalence of each 5As term differed in all three guidelines, with 'Arrange' being mentioned the least often. Behaviour change concepts and terms, such as patient-centredness, listening, trust and tailoring, were infrequently used and were often confined to a separate chapter of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The language and content of the guidelines contrast with known effective components of behaviour change consultations. Future revisions could reconsider emphasis of 5As terms to avoid paternalistic approaches, improve shared language across guidelines and incorporate behavioural science principles to enhance preventative care delivery.

Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research. DESIGN: Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group. SETTING: International online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses. RESULTS: 98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items). CONCLUSION: Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research.

Teaming in Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions in Primary Care: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

Behaviour change for type 2 diabetes: perspectives of general practitioners, primary care academics, and behaviour change experts on the use of the 5As framework.

BACKGROUND: The 5As framework is a recognized underpinning of behaviour change guidelines, teaching, and research in primary care. Supporting patients to improve their lifestyle behaviours, including diet and physical activity, is a common aspect of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management. The 5As framework often informs behaviour change for patients with T2DM. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience and perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and primary care academics and behaviour change experts regarding using the 5As framework when caring for patients with T2DM to better understand how and why the 5As are effective in practice. METHODS: We recruited 20 practising GPs, primary care academics, and behaviour change experts for an individual semistructured interview and analysed the data using a realist evaluation approach. RESULTS: There were diverse accounts of how GPs use the 5As in practice and few of the participants could name each "A." The 5As were commonly regarded as a framework best suited to beginners and although GPs expressed they followed the broad direction of the 5As, they did not consciously follow the framework in an instructive manner. Elements that could enhance the 5As included more emphasis on motivational interviewing, changing how "Ask" is included in the consultation, and increased person-centredness. CONCLUSION: Although it is a ubiquitous framework in primary care, the 5As are understood in diverse ways and applied variably in practice. There is room to enhance how the 5As support behaviour change consultations to optimize outcomes in primary care.

General practitioners (GPs) are usually involved in helping patients with diabetes to improve their diet, physical activity, and other lifestyle behaviours. The 5As are a framework designed to be used to structure behaviour change conversations­5As stand for Ask, Assess, Advise, Assist, and Arrange. We interviewed 20 people who were either GPs or experts in behaviour change. They had different ways of explaining the intent and usage of the 5As but consistently saw them as a framework for new practitioners. No one used the 5As consciously in their consultations with patients. The participants had multiple suggestions for how the 5As could be enhanced to support better care for patients living with diabetes. These included: more focus on motivational interviewing techniques, changing the number or order of the 5As steps, more focus on teamwork as well as the individual cultural needs of the patients. This work can inform further research on how patients can be better supported by GPs through evidence-based behaviour change care.

Advance care planning in dementia: a qualitative study of Australian general practitioners.

As the population ages, so does the prevalence of dementia, a condition in which timely advance care planning (ACP) is recommended. This study explored the barriers and enablers of ACP for Australian GPs caring for people with dementia. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews informed by the theoretical domains framework (TDF) were conducted with 16 GPs from the south-east region of metropolitan Melbourne. The most prevalent domains of the TDF were: (1) environmental context and resources; (2) beliefs about consequences; and (3) social/professional role and identity. Further thematic analysis found that: (1) ACP was felt to be within the scope of general practice, but more so before the onset of dementia because lack of confidence in capacity assessment acted as a barrier once a diagnosis was made; (2) beliefs about the perceived benefits of ACP motivated GPs to engage patients in ACP; and (3) doctors felt that patients were often reluctant to discuss ACP, especially in the time-pressured context of the standard consultation. This study's use of the TDF provides direction for potential interventions to alleviate challenges faced by Australian GPs with ACP in dementia. Improving ACP in general practice may require a focus on public health campaigns to educate patients about the benefits of ACP before the onset of dementia. GPs' difficulty assessing a patient's decisional capacity may be addressed through skills development workshops.

Evaluation of Australian prescription drug monitoring programs need a holistic approach.

Prescription opioid-related mortality is increasing in Australia. Real-time Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) have recently been implemented as a strategy to reduce opioid-related harm. PDMPs enable prescribers and dispensers to view patients' prescription history before writing or dispensing a high-risk medication. This article considers the complexity of accurately evaluating PDMP effectiveness. To ensure sustainable implementation of these systems in Australia, a wide range of outcomes need to be measured. These include any unintended consequences and impacts on comprehensive patient care. Furthermore, intervention evaluation may be disrupted by concurrent interventions, limited methodologies and the shortcomings of the current approach.

General practitioner attitudes towards systems-level opioid prescribing interventions: A pooled secondary qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Several Australian systems-level initiatives have been implemented to reduce opioid overprescribing. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioner (GP) attitudes towards these interventions. METHOD: This secondary qualitative analysis used pooled interview data (collected in 2018 and 2019), recoded using thematic analysis and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation model of behaviour change (COM-B model). Participants were professionally registered GPs or general practice registrars from Victoria and New South Wales. RESULTS: Fifty-seven GPs and general practice registrars were included. Participants expressed positive attitudes towards real-time prescription monitoring and codeine up-scheduling. High-prescriber 'nudge' letters sent by the government were perceived to be overly paternalistic and as potentially threatening to the prescribing of adequate analgesia. Guidelines and education were considered useful in principle, but were not commonly used. DISCUSSION: Systems-level interventions aimed at reducing opioid overprescribing by GPs may be more successful if they partner with GPs and consider prescriber motivation a prerequisite to capacity to change. It may be beneficial for new interventions to target motivation beyond single mechanisms.

Patient-Chosen Gap Payment: an exploratory qualitative review of patients and general practitioner attitudes toward an alternative funding model for general practice.

We explored patients' and GPs' perceptions of an alternative payment system, a Patient-Chosen Gap Payment, where a gap fee is determined by the patient based on their perceived value of the service, including the choice to pay nothing. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews held with GPs (n=10) and patients (n=10) were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed for emerging themes. We found three emergent themes: (1) the cost of quality: health care was difficult to value for both GPs and patients; there was belief in universal coverage and the importance of quality, but trade-offs in quality of care were a common perception; (2) the doctor-patient relationship: patient-centred care was a common goal and perceived as a good measure of quality care and a way for patients to place a value on the service/care; and (3) the business of general practice: participants wanted to see sustainable business models for primary care that incentivised quality of care. A Patient-Chosen Gap Payment (PCGP) funding model could incentivise doctors to provide better care without limiting access to health care. Further research is needed to model real-world application.

The opioid-prescribing practices of Australian general practice registrars: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of the opioids prescribed by Australian GP and GP registrars are for chronic non-cancer pain-despite limited therapeutic benefit, and serious risks of harm. Understanding the factors driving non-evidence-based opioid prescribing may improve GP training and education. OBJECTIVE: To explore attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and self-reported factors influencing the opioid-prescribing decisions of Australian GP registrars. METHODS: Telephone interviews were undertaken with 20 GP registrars in 2018-19. Interviews were 30-60 minutes in duration, audio-recorded and de-identified. Braun and Clarke's 6-phase framework was adopted for reflexive thematic analysis of data and managed using QSR NVivo software. RESULTS: Twenty registrars were recruited; 8 men and 12 women. Three themes were identified. SUPPORT AND SUPERVISION: Difficult chronic pain consultations negatively affected the registrar well-being. Registrars role modelled their supervisors' opioid-prescribing practices, even if they perceived it to be unsafe. CONFIDENCE: Registrars lacked confidence in initiating, prescribing and weaning opioids, recognizing drug-seeking behaviours and declining to prescribe-but felt confident in their knowledge of opioid pharmacology. SAFETY: Registrars were aware of evidence-based prescribing recommendations and risk reduction strategies but struggled to translate this into practice. CONCLUSIONS: Non-evidence-based opioid prescribing by Australian GP registrars is multifactorial. Emotionally difficult pain consultations, poor supervision and low prescriber confidence may contribute to unsafe prescribing. Improving registrar prescribing may require interventions to improve risk reduction, training in communication and role modelling by supervisors.

Qualitative insights into the opioid prescribing practices of Australian GP.

BACKGROUND: Over the last three decades, Australian opioid-prescribing rates and related morbidity and mortality have dramatically increased. Opioids are frequently prescribed by general practitioners (GPs) to manage chronic non-cancer pain, despite evidence-based recommendations from the Centre for Disease Control, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and World Health Organization widely cautioning their use. Little is known about the factors influencing the opioid prescribing decisions of Australian GPs, especially when not evidence based. OBJECTIVE: To explore the opioid prescribing knowledge, attitudes and practices of Australian GPs. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs recruited from the Monash University practice-based research network in metropolitan, southeastern Melbourne. Thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes. Data were managed using QSR NVivo. Ethics approval was granted by Monash University. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged. GP attitudes towards opioid use for chronic pain varied by age of patient and goals for therapy. Use of opioids for elderly patients was positively perceived. GPs were reluctant to use opioids in younger patients due to fears of addiction and difficulty weaning. GPs felt obliged to prescribe opioids recommended by specialists, even if they believed the opioids were unsafe. CONCLUSION: This study identified and described the patient-centred nature of GP opioid prescribing decisions. Patient age and perceived age-related opioid harm were important factors influencing prescribing decisions. Future work should inform interventions that value GP autonomy while still encouraging a collaborative inter-speciality approach to managing chronic pain patients with opioids.

The effects of dummy/pacifier use on infant blood pressure and autonomic activity during sleep.

BACKGROUND: Dummy/pacifier use is protective for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); however, the mechanism/s for this are unknown. As impaired cardiovascular control may be the underlying cause of SIDS, we assessed the effects of dummy/pacifier use on cardiovascular control during sleep within the first 6 months of life. METHODS: Term infants, divided into dummy/pacifier users and non-dummy/pacifier users, were studied at 2-4 weeks (n = 27), 2-3 months (n = 35) and 5-6 months (n = 31) using daytime polysomnography. Heart rate, blood pressure (BP), heart rate variability (HRV), blood pressure variability (BPV), and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) were measured in triplicate 1-2-min epochs during quiet and active sleep in the supine and prone positions. RESULTS: Overall, during the non-sucking periods, in the prone position, the BP was higher (10-22 mmHg) in dummy/pacifier users compared to non-users at 2-4 weeks and 5-6 months (p < 0.05 for both). HRV and BRS were higher in dummy/pacifier users compared to non-users at 2-4 weeks (p < 0.05). Active sucking increased HRV and BPV, consistent with increased sympathetic activity in dummy/pacifier users. CONCLUSIONS: Higher BP and HRV in dummy/pacifier users indicate increased sympathetic tone, which may serve as a protective mechanism against possible hypotension leading to SIDS; however, these effects were not apparent at 2-3 months, when the risk of SIDS is highest.