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.

Natural history of abdominal pain in family practice: Longitudinal study of electronic medical record data in southwestern Ontario.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency, natural history, and outcomes of 3 subtypes of abdominal pain (general abdominal pain, epigastric pain, localized abdominal pain) among patients visiting Canadian family practices. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with a 4-year longitudinal analysis. SETTING: Southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1790 eligible patients with International Classification of Primary Care codes for abdominal pain from 18 family physicians in 8 group practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The symptom pathways, the length of an episode, and the number of visits. RESULTS: Abdominal pain accounted for 2.4% of the 15,149 patient visits and involved 14.0% of the 1790 eligible patients. The frequencies of each of the 3 subtypes were as follows: localized abdominal pain, 89 patients, 1.0% of visits, and 5.0% of patients; general abdominal pain, 79 patients, 0.8% of visits, and 4.4% of patients; and epigastric pain, 65 patients, 0.7% of visits, and 3.6% of patients. Those with epigastric pain received more medications, and patients with localized abdominal pain underwent more investigations. Three longitudinal outcome pathways were identified. Pathway 1, in which the symptom remains at the end of the visit with no diagnosis, was the most common among patients with all subtypes of abdominal symptoms at 52.8%, 54.4%, and 50.8% for localized, general, and epigastric pain, respectively, and the symptom episodes were relatively short. Less than 15% of patients followed pathway 2, in which a diagnosis is made and the symptom persists, and yet the episodes were long with 8.75 to 16.80 months' mean duration and 2.70 to 4.00 mean number of visits. Pathway 3, in which a diagnosis is made and there are no further visits for that symptom, occurred approximately one-third of the time, with about 1 visit over about 2 months. Prior chronic conditions were common across all 3 subtypes of abdominal pain ranging from 72.2% to 80.0%. Psychological symptoms consistently occurred at a rate of approximately one-third. CONCLUSION: The 3 subtypes of abdominal pain differed in clinically important ways. The most frequent pathway was that the symptom remained with no diagnosis, suggesting a need for clinical approaches and education programs for care of symptoms themselves, not merely in the service of coming to a diagnosis. The importance of prior chronic conditions and psychological conditions was highlighted by the results.

Training and capacity development in patient-oriented research: Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit (OSSU) initiatives.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research launched the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) in 2011. The strategy defines 'patient-oriented research' as a continuum of research that engages patients as partners, focuses on patient priorities, and leads to improved patient outcomes. The overarching term 'patient' is inclusive of individuals with personal experience of a health issue as well as informal caregivers including family and friends. The vision for the strategy is improved patient experiences and outcomes through the integration of patient-oriented research findings into practice, policy, and health system improvement. Building capacity in patient-oriented research among all relevant stakeholders, namely patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and research funders is a core element of the strategy. MAIN BODY: The objective of this paper is to describe capacity building initiatives in patient-oriented research led by the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit in Ontario, Canada over the period 2014-2020. CONCLUSION: The Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit Working Group in Training and Capacity Development has led numerous capacity building initiatives: developed a Capacity Building Compendium (accessed greater than 45,000 times); hosted Masterclasses that have trained hundreds of stakeholders (patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, researchers, and trainees) in the conduct and use of patient-oriented research; funded the development of online curricula on patient-oriented research that have reached thousands of stakeholders; developed a patient engagement resource center that has been accessed by tens of thousands of stakeholders; identified core competencies for research teams and research environments to ensure authentic and meaningful patient partnerships in health research; and shared these resources and learnings with stakeholders across Canada, North America, and internationally.

In 2011, Canada developed a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research. The aim of the strategy was to ensure that patients were included as equal partners in research, with the goal to improve the patient experience and enhance health outcomes using research findings to influence clinical care, policy, and health system improvement. Building capacity in patient-oriented research is a core element of the strategy. Since 2014, the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit has led numerous initiatives to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Successes include a Capacity Building Compendium (a catalogue of resources that has been accessed greater than 45,000 times); courses on how to do and how to use patient-oriented research that have trained hundreds of patients, practitioners, organizational leaders, policymakers, and researchers; created online patient-oriented research materials; developed a patient engagement resource center; identified what is required to ensure authentic and meaningful patient partnerships in research; and shared these resources and learnings widely.

Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial and propensity-matched analyses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched). METHODS: Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]). INTERPRETATION: Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods. ONTARIO: ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.

Virtual family physician care during COVID-19: a mixed methods study using health administrative data and qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in primary health care from predominantly in-person to high volumes of virtual care. The pandemic afforded the opportunity to conduct a deep regional examination of virtual care by family physicians in London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada that would inform the foundation for virtual care in our region post-pandemic. OBJECTIVES: (1) to determine volumes of in-person and virtual family physicians visits and characteristics of the family physicians and patients using them during the early COVID-19 pandemic; (2) to determine how virtual visit volumes changed over the pandemic, compared to in-person; and (3) to explore family physicians' experience in virtual visit adoption and implementation. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study of family physicians from March to October 2020. The quantitative component examined mean weekly number of total, in-person and virtual visits using health administrative data. Differences in outcomes according to physician and practice characteristics for pandemic periods were compared to pre-pandemic. The qualitative study employed Constructivist Grounded Theory, conducting semi-structured family physicians interviews; analyzing data iteratively using constant comparative analysis. We mapped themes from the qualitative analysis to quantitative findings. RESULTS: Initial volumes of patients decreased, driven by fewer in-person visits. Virtual visit volumes increased dramatically; family physicians described using telephone almost entirely. Rural family physicians reported video connectivity issues. By early second wave, total family physician visit volume returned to pre-pandemic volumes. In-person visits increased substantially; family physicians reported this happened because previously scarce personal protective equipment became available. Patients seen during the pandemic were older, sicker, and more materially deprived. CONCLUSION: These results can inform the future of virtual family physician care including the importance of continued virtual care compensation, the need for equitable family physician payment models, and the need to attend to equity for vulnerable patients. Given the move to virtual care was primarily a move to telephone care, the modality of care delivery that is acceptable to both family physicians and their patients must be considered.

Is primary health care ready for artificial intelligence? What do primary health care stakeholders say?

BACKGROUND: Effective deployment of AI tools in primary health care requires the engagement of practitioners in the development and testing of these tools, and a match between the resulting AI tools and clinical/system needs in primary health care. To set the stage for these developments, we must gain a more in-depth understanding of the views of practitioners and decision-makers about the use of AI in primary health care. The objective of this study was to identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. METHODS: This study utilized a descriptive qualitative approach, including thematic data analysis. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary health care and digital health stakeholders in Ontario. NVivo software was utilized in the coding of the interviews. RESULTS: Five main interconnected themes emerged: (1) Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality-denoting the importance of potential applications of AI in primary health care practice, with a recognition of the current reality characterized by a lack of available tools; (2) Mechanics of AI Don't Matter: Just Another Tool in the Toolbox- reflecting an interest in what value AI tools could bring to practice, rather than concern with the mechanics of the AI tools themselves; (3) AI in Practice: A Double-Edged Sword-the possible benefits of AI use in primary health care contrasted with fundamental concern about the possible threats posed by AI in terms of clinical skills and capacity, mistakes, and loss of control; (4) The Non-Starters: A Guarded Stance Regarding AI Adoption in Primary Health Care-broader concerns centred on the ethical, legal, and social implications of AI use in primary health care; and (5) Necessary Elements: Facilitators of AI in Primary Health Care-elements required to support the uptake of AI tools, including co-creation, availability and use of high quality data, and the need for evaluation. CONCLUSION: The use of AI in primary health care may have a positive impact, but many factors need to be considered regarding its implementation. This study may help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

The 'miracle cure': how do primary care physicians prescribe physical activity with the aim of improving clinical outcomes of chronic disease? A scoping review.

Objectives: To identify how primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribe physical activity for patients with chronic disease, and to determine characteristics of physical activity interventions with improved clinical outcomes of chronic disease. Design: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews 2018 was completed. Data sources: Four bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL) and four grey literature/unpublished databases (Proquest, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Health Research Collections, Clinical Trials) were searched from inception to 7 March 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies involving PCP-delivered physical activity prescriptions or counselling for participants with a chronic disease or mental health condition, which reported clinical outcomes were included. Opinion papers, news and magazine articles and case reports were excluded, as were studies in which a physical activity intervention was provided for primary prevention of chronic disease, prescribed by healthcare providers or researchers other than PCPs, or for healthy participants without chronic disease. Results: An initial search identified 4992 records. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Characteristics of physical activity prescriptions that improved clinical outcomes included: personalised advice; brief intervention; behavioural supports (handouts and/or referrals) and physician follow-up. Reported adverse events were rare. Research gaps include optimal timing and length of follow-up, and the long-term and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Summary/Conclusion: Several characteristics of physical activity counselling by PCPs for patients with chronic disease may improve clinical outcomes, although research gaps remain. Studies exploring the effectiveness of physical activity prescription for individuals with chronic conditions are urgently needed.

Complex skills are required for new primary health care researchers: a training program responds.

BACKGROUND: Current dimensions of the primary health care research (PHC) context, including the need for contextualized research methods to address complex questions, and the co-creation of knowledge through partnerships with stakeholders - require PHC researchers to have a comprehensive set of skills for engaging effectively in high impact research. MAIN BODY: In 2002 we developed a unique program to respond to these needs - Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research - Primary Health Care (TUTOR-PHC). The program's goals are to train a cadre of PHC researchers, clinicians, and decision makers in interdisciplinary research to aid them in tackling current and future challenges in PHC and in leading collaborative interdisciplinary research teams. Seven essential educational approaches employed by TUTOR-PHC are described, as well as the principles underlying the curriculum. This program is unique because of its pan-Canadian nature, longevity, and the multiplicity of disciplines represented. Program evaluation results indicate: 1) overall program experiences are very positive; 2) TUTOR-PHC increases trainee interdisciplinary research understanding and activity; and 3) this training assists in developing their interdisciplinary research careers. Taken together, the structure of the program, its content, educational approaches, and principles, represent a complex whole. This complexity parallels that of the PHC research context - a context that requires researchers who are able to respond to multiple challenges. CONCLUSION: We present this description of ways to teach and learn the advanced complex skills necessary for successful PHC researchers with a view to supporting the potential uptake of program components in other settings.

Who is at the centre of what? A scoping review of the conceptualisation of 'centredness' in healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the core elements of centredness in healthcare literature. Our overall research question is: How has centredness been represented within the health literature published between 1990 and 2019? METHODS: A scoping review across five databases (Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus; August 2019) to identify all peer-reviewed literature published since 1990 that focused on the concept of centredness in any healthcare discipline or setting. Screening occurred in duplicate by a multidisciplinary, multinational team. The team met regularly to iteratively develop and refine a coding template that was used in analysis and discuss the interpretations of centredness reported in the literature. RESULTS: A total of 23 006 title and abstracts, and 499 full-text articles were screened. A total of 159 articles were included in the review. Most articles were from the USA, and nursing was the disciplinary perspective most represented. We identified nine elements of centredness: Sharing power; Sharing responsibility; Therapeutic relationship/bond/alliance; Patient as a person; Biopsychosocial; Provider as a person; Co-ordinated care; Access; Continuity of care. There was little variation in the concept of centredness no matter the preceding word (eg, patient-/person-/client-), healthcare setting or disciplinary lens. Improving health outcomes was the most common justification for pursuing centredness as a concept, and respect was the predominant driving value of the research efforts. The patient perspective was rarely included in the papers (15% of papers). CONCLUSIONS: Centredness is consistently conceptualised, regardless of the preceding word, disciplinary lens or nation of origin. Further research should focus on centring the patient perspective and prioritise research that considers more diverse cultural perspectives.

Responding to vulnerable patients with multimorbidity: an interprofessional team approach.

BACKGROUND: People with multimorbidity, who may be more vulnerable to certain social determinants of health, often require care by an interprofessional primary healthcare (PHC) team that can tailor their approach to address the multiple and complex needs of this population. This paper describes how the needs of vulnerable patients experiencing multimorbidity are identified and provided care by innovative interprofessional PHC teams during an innovative one-hour consultation, outside of usual care. METHODS: This was a descriptive qualitative study. Forty-eight interviews were conducted with 20 allied healthcare professionals: (e.g., social work, pharmacy); 19 physicians (e.g., psychiatry, internal medicine, family medicine); and 9 decision makers. The thematic analysis was iterative using an individual and team approach to identify the main themes and exemplar quotations for illustration. RESULTS: Participants described patients with multimorbidity who were vulnerable as those experiencing major challenges accessing and navigating the healthcare system. Mental health issues were a major contributor to being vulnerable and often linked to common social determinants of health. Cultural factors were identified as potentially causing patients to be vulnerable. Participants articulated how the collaborative nature of the team generated new ideas and facilitated creative recommendations designed to meet the specific needs of each patient. CONCLUSIONS: This one-time consultation went beyond the assessment of a patient's multimorbidity by including a psycho-social-contextual understanding of vulnerability within the healthcare system. Findings may have important clinical and policy implications in the adoption and implementation of this approach and further assist vulnerable patients with multimorbidity in having their complex needs addressed.

Challenges in Multimorbidity Research: Lessons Learned From the Most Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care.

Multimorbidity has received much attention and there is a growing number of original studies. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patient with multimorbidity in primary care. The purpose of this article is to synthesize and analyze the most recent RCTs to identify the factors that may have contribute to the success or lack of success in order to draw lessons to inform further development in intervention research. A scoping review was conducted to include current up-to-date state-of-the-art studies in primary care published from 2019. Nine articles reporting on six RCTs studies were included in the review. The findings were mixed, with primary outcomes showing no differences between intervention and control groups in four of the six but differences in secondary outcomes in all six. All studies involved family practice patients but interventions took place at different sites, and the time between the beginning of the intervention and the time of evaluation of outcomes varied across studies. Authors reported issues regarding the need for training of care teams, the roles and composition of the teams, the selection of patients and implementation barriers of the complex interventions in trying contexts with not enough time for the changes required. The randomized controlled design may not be the best evaluation design given the complexity of the interventions, and alternative designs should be considered in which qualitative components are included. Further attention to outcome measures and to equity issues is recommended.

Family physician virtual care during COVID-19 in London-Middlesex, Ontario, Canada: a mixed methods exploration.

Context: On March 14, 2020, the Ontario, Canada health insurance plan approved COVID-19 physician virtual billing codes; family physicians (FPs) rapidly adopted a new model of care. Virtual care may remain post-pandemic; however, its future should be informed by evidence that considers access and continuity. Objective: 1) to determine FP virtual visit volumes and patient characteristics and 2) to explore FPs' perspectives on virtual visit adoption and implementation. Study Design: Mixed methods: Secondary analysis of health administrative (HA) data and semi-structured qualitative interviews with FPs. Setting or Dataset: London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada. HA data through ICES, Ontario entity holding data. Population studied: FPs and their patients. Outcome Measures: Volumes of FP in-person and virtual visits during early pandemic; characteristics of patients receiving care; FPs' perspectives on adopting and delivering virtual care. Results: Overall visit volume dropped by 36% during first wave, recovered to pre-pandemic levels by October 2020. Sharp in-person visit drop of 73% and virtual visit uptake from 0.08% of total visits to 57% within two weeks of March 2020. FPs described this initial drop in volume as patients not seeking care and practices lacking PPE. The move to virtual care was largely to telephone visits. Patient characteristics compared to pre-pandemic, the proportion seeking care were older (46 vs 50 years), more vulnerable (38% vs 41%), and more multimorbidity (33% vs 41%). This was consistent with FP reports that healthier patients stayed away, routine care deferred, sicker patients needed to be seen. FPs believed most vulnerable patients had access to care but cautioned highly vulnerable such as those homeless did not have cell phone access or a safe place to receive calls. Rural FPs reported access issues because of lack of high-speed internet. FPs attributed success of virtual care to the continuity in relationships they had with patients that were established in person pre-pandemic. Conclusions: FPs moved rapidly to virtual care. FP offices remained open despite PPE concerns but overall volumes dropped initially. Vulnerable and sicker patients received care but FPs expressed concern for highly vulnerable and rural residents. FPs believed they could offer patient-centred care over the phone but indicated the importance of maintaining in-person care to build relationships.

Is primary health care ready for artificial intelligence? Stakeholder perspectives: Worth the risk as long as you do it well.

Context: The effective deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary health care requires a match between the AI tools that are being developed and the needs of primary health care practitioners and patients. Currently, the majority of AI development targeted toward potential application in primary care is being conducted without the involvement of these stakeholders. Objective: To identify key issues regarding the use of AI tools in primary health care by exploring the views of primary health care and digital health stakeholders. Study Design: A descriptive qualitative approach was taken in this study. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with primary care and digital health stakeholders. Setting: Province of Ontario, Canada Population studied: Primary health care and digital health stakeholders Outcome Measures: N/A Results: Two main themes emerged from the data analysis: Worth the Risk as Long as You Do It Well; and, Mismatch Between Envisioned Uses and Current Reality. Participants noted that AI could have value if used for specific purposes, for example: supporting care for patients; reducing practitioner burden; analyzing existing evidence; managing patient populations; and, supporting operational efficiencies. Participants identified facilitators of AI being used for these purposes including: use of relevant case studies/success stories with realistic uses of AI highlighted; easy or low risk applications; and, end user involvement. However, barriers to the use of AI included: data quality; digital divide/equity; distrust of AI including security/privacy issues; for-profit motives; need for transparency about how AI works; and, fear about impact on practitioners regarding clinical judgement. Conclusion: AI will continue to become more prominent in primary health care. There is potential for positive impact, however there are many factors that need to be considered regarding the implementation of AI. The findings of this study can help to inform the development and deployment of AI tools in primary health care.

Identifying priorities for artificial intelligence and primary care in ontario: A multi-stakeholder engagement event.

CONTEXT: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being recognized as having potential importance to primary care (PC). However, there is a gap in our understanding about where to focus efforts related to AI for PC settings, especially given the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To identify current priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-stakeholder engagement event with facilitated small and large group discussions. A nominal group technique process was used to identify and rank challenges in PC that AI may be able to support. Mentimeter software was used to allow real-time, anonymous and independent ranking from all participants. A final list of priority areas for AI and PC, with key considerations, was derived based on ranked items and small group discussion notes. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. POPULATION STUDIED: Digital health and PC stakeholders. OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A. RESULTS: The event included 8 providers, 8 patient advisors, 4 decision makers, 3 digital health stakeholders, and 12 researchers. Nine priority areas for AI and PC were identified and ranked, which can be grouped into those intended to support physician (preventative care and risk profiling, clinical decision support, routine task support), patient (self-management of conditions, increased mental health care capacity and support), or system-level initiatives (administrative staff support, management and synthesis of information sources); and foundational areas that would support work on other priorities (improved communication between PC and AI stakeholders, data sharing and interoperability between providers). Small group discussions identified barriers and facilitators related to the priorities, including data availability, quality, and consent; legal and device certification issues; trust between people and technology; equity and the digital divide; patient centredness and user-centred design; and the need for funding to support collaborative research and pilot testing. Although identified areas do not explicitly mention COVID-19, participants were encouraged to think about what would be feasible and meaningful to accomplish within a few years, including considerations of the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery phases. CONCLUSIONS: A one-day multi-stakeholder event identified priority areas for AI and PC in Ontario. These priorities can serve as guideposts to focus near-term efforts on the planning, development, and evaluation of AI for PC.

One year follow-up and exploratory analysis of a patient-centered interdisciplinary care intervention for multimorbidity.

CONTEXT: Interventions for people with multimorbidity have obtained mixed results. We aimed to document the long-term effect of an intervention for people with multimorbidity. METHODS: 284 patients (18-80 years) presenting three or more chronic conditions were recruited from seven family medicine groups in the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean region, Quebec, Canada. The patient-centered intervention was based on motivational approach and self-management support. Outcomes were evaluated in a one-year pre-post study design with questionnaires that included the Health Education Questionnaire (heiQ), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases, the Veteran RAND-12 Health Survey (VR-12), the EuroQoL 5-Domains questionnaire, the Kessler six item Psychological Stress Scale, and measures of smoking habit, physical activity, healthy eating and alcohol consumption. Subgroup analyses by age, number of conditions, sex, and income were also conducted. RESULTS: The heiQ domain of emotional wellbeing improved significantly. Improvement was also observed for the VR-12 and the K6. Among the health behaviours, only healthy eating was improved. Subgroup analyses in this exploratory study suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours. CONCLUSION: One year after the intervention, participants significantly improved a variety of outcomes. Subgroup analyses suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours. This suggests that future interventions should be tailored to patients' characteristics including age, sex, income and number of conditions.

Evaluating the implementation of interdisciplinary patient-centred care intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: A patient-centred care interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention to support self-management for patients with multimorbidity was implemented in one region of Quebec, Canada. This embedded study aimed to evaluate the process of implementation. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative study was conducted in 2016-2017 using semistructured individual interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide the data coding, analysis and reporting of the findings. SETTING: The study took place in seven Family Medicine Groups in one region (Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean) of Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Ten managers (including two family physicians) and 19 healthcare professionals (HCPs), nurses, kinesiologists, nutritionists and a respiratory therapist, were interviewed. RESULTS: Many key elements within the five CFIR domains were identified as impacting the implementation of the intervention : (1) intervention characteristics-evidence strength and quality, design quality and packaging, relative advantage and complexity; (2) outer setting-patients' needs and resources, external policies and incentives; (3) inner setting-structural characteristics, networks and communication, culture, compatibility, readiness for implementation and leadership engagement; (4) characteristics of the managers and HCPs-knowledge and belief about the intervention; (5) process-planning, opinion leaders, formally appointed internal implementation leaders, reflecting and evaluating. CONCLUSION: This study revealed the organisational and contextual aspects of the implementation based on different and complementary perspectives. With the growing demand for interdisciplinary teams in primary care, we believe that our insights will be helpful for practices, researchers, and policymakers interested in the implementation of disease prevention and management programmes for people with multiple chronic conditions in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02789800.