Primary care engagement in health system change: a scoping review of common barriers and effective strategies.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of health systems necessitates coordination between a multitude of stakeholders to enact meaningful change. Primary care physicians are a crucial partner to engage, as their investment and participation are critical to the success of any system-level initiative. The aim of this scoping review is to identify common barriers and effective strategies when engaging primary care physicians in designing and implementing health system change. METHODS: A scoping review was performed. A literature search was performed in March 2020 using five databases. 668 unique articles were identified and underwent a title and abstract review. 23 articles met criteria for full text review and 10 met final inclusion criteria. A backward citation analysis identified two articles. 12 articles underwent data extraction and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Several barriers to engagement were identified including a lack of trust between primary care physicians and decision-makers, strong professional physician identity, clinically irrelevant and complex proposals, and a lack of capacity and supports. Described strategies to overcome these barriers included building trust and relationships, contextual engagement strategies, working with physician leadership, enabling open and intentional communication channels, designing clinically relevant and straightforward initiatives, and considering financial incentives. CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to primary care engagement should be addressed with contextually designed strategies and a focus on relationship building, collaborative efforts, and implementing relevant and feasible initiatives. Further research should explore how to best develop relationships with primary care, working with collective voices of primary care physicians, and to better understanding the impact of financial incentives on engagement.

Assessing variation among the national essential medicines lists of 21 high-income countries: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Essential medicines lists have been created and used globally in countries that range from low-income to high-income status. The aim of this paper is to compare the essential medicines list of high-income countries with each other, the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines and the lists of countries of other income statuses. DESIGN: High-income countries were defined by World Bank classification. High-income essential medicines lists were assessed for medicine inclusion and were compared with the subset of high-income countries, the WHO's Model List and 137 national essential medicines lists. Medicine lists were obtained from the Global Essential Medicines database. Countries were subdivided by income status, and the groups' most common medicines were compared. Select medicines and medicine classes were assessed for inclusion among high-income country lists. RESULTS: The 21 high-income countries identified were most like each other when compared with other lists. They were more like upper middle-income countries and least like low-income countries. There was significant variability in the number of medicines on each list. Less than half (48%) of high-income countries included a newer diabetes medicines in their list. Most countries (71%) included naloxone while every country including at least one opioid medicine. More than half of the lists (52%) included a medicine that has been globally withdrawn or banned. CONCLUSION: Essential medicines lists of high-income countries are similar to each other, but significant variations in essential medicine list composition and specifically the number of medications included were noted. Effective medicines were left off several countries' lists, and globally recalled medicines were included on over half the lists. Comparing the essential medicines lists of countries within the same income status category can provide a useful subset of lists for policymakers and essential medicine list creators to use when creating or maintaining their lists.

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of providing essential medicines at no charge: the Carefully seLected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cost-related non-adherence to medicines is common in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries such as Canada. Medicine non-adherence is associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. This randomised trial will test the impact of a carefully selected list of essential medicines at no charge (compared with usual medicine access) in primary care patients reporting cost-related non-adherence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-label, parallel two-arm, superiority, individually randomised controlled trial conducted in three primary care sites (one urban, two rural) in Ontario, Canada, that was codesigned by a community guidance panel. Adult patients (≥18 years) who report cost-related non-adherence to medicines are eligible to participate in the study. Participants will be randomised to receive free and convenient access to a carefully selected list of 125 essential medicines (based on the WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines) or usual means of medicine access. Care for patients in both groups will otherwise be unchanged. The primary outcome of this trial is adherence to appropriately prescribed medicines. Secondary outcomes include medicine adherence, appropriate prescribing, blood pressure, haemoglobin A1c, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, patient-oriented outcomes and healthcare costs. All participants will be followed for at least 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained in all three participating sites. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and discussed with members of the public and decision makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02744963.