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.

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.

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.

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.

Scaling Up Patient-Centered Interdisciplinary Care for Multimorbidity: A Pragmatic Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To measure the effectiveness of a 4-month interdisciplinary multifaceted intervention based on a change in care delivery for patients with multimorbidity in primary care practices. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a mixed-methods design in patients aged 18 to 80 years with 3 or more chronic conditions from 7 family medicine groups (FMGs) in Quebec, Canada. Health care professionals (nurses, nutritionists, kinesiologists) from the FMGs were trained to deliver the patient-centered intervention based on a motivational approach and self-management support. Primary outcomes: self-management (Health Education Impact Questionnaire); and self-efficacy. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: health status, quality of life, and health behaviors. Quantitative analyses used multi-level mixed effects and generalized linear mixed models controlling for clustering within FMGs. We also conducted in-depth interviews with patients, family members, and health care professionals. RESULTS: The trial randomized 284 patients (144 in intervention group, 140 in control group). The groups were comparable. After 4 months, the intervention showed a neutral effect for the primary outcomes. There was significant improvement in 2 health behaviors (healthy eating with odds ratios [OR] 4.36; P = .006, and physical activity with OR 3.43; P = .023). The descriptive qualitative evaluation revealed that the patients reinforced their self-efficacy and improved their self-management which was divergent from the quantitative results. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitatively, this intervention showed a neutral effect on the primary outcomes and substantial improvement in 2 health behaviors as secondary outcomes. Qualitatively, the intervention was evaluated as positive. The combination of qualitative and quantitative designs proved to be a good design for evaluating this complex intervention.

The prevalence of multimorbidity in primary care: a comparison of two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multimorbidity varies widely due to the lack of consensus in defining multimorbidity. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of multimorbidity in a primary care setting using two definitions of multimorbidity with two different lists of chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 787,446 patients, aged 0 to 99 years, who consulted a family physician between July 2015 to June 2016. Multimorbidity was defined as 'two or more' (MM2+) or 'three or more' (MM3+) chronic conditions using the Fortin list and Chronic Disease Management Program (CDMP) list of chronic conditions. Crude and standardised prevalence rates were reported, and the corresponding age, sex or ethnic-stratified standardised prevalence rates were adjusted to the local population census. RESULTS: The number of patients with multimorbidity increased with age. Age-sex-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates of multimorbidity using MM2+ and MM3+ for Fortin list (25.9, 17.2%) were higher than those for CDMP list (22.0%; 12.4%). Sex-stratified, age-ethnicity standardised prevalence rates for MM2+ and MM3+ were consistently higher in males compared to females for both lists. Chinese and Indians have the highest standardised prevalence rates among the four ethnicities using MM2+ and MM3+ respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MM3+ was better at identifying a smaller number of patients with multimorbidity requiring higher needs compared to MM2+. Using the Fortin list seemed more appropriate than the CDMP list because the chronic conditions in Fortin's list were more commonly seen in primary care. A consistent definition of multimorbidity will help researchers and clinicians to understand the epidemiology of multimorbidity better.

Women's Views on Advice About Weight Gain in Pregnancy: A Grounded Theory Study.

OBJECTIVES: Pregnant women prioritize the health of their pregnancy, and weight gain contributes to the pregnancy's health. Women encounter different messages about gestational weight gain from various sources that can be confusing. This study aimed to increase our understanding of the processes influencing how women experience the gestational weight gain advice they receive. METHODS: Grounded theory methodology was chosen. Women receiving prenatal care in a primary care setting were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews. RESULTS: All fifteen participants had high educational attainment, fourteen were Caucasian, and five had an elevated pre-pregnancy body mass index. Six interconnected themes emerged from the data: (1) striving to have a healthy pregnancy; (2) experiencing influences; (3) feeling worried; (4) Managing ambiguity; (5) trusting a source of information; and (6) feeling relief. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Physicians are perceived by pregnant women to be a source of trusted information about gestational weight gain and are therefore in a strategic position to help women achieve healthy weight gain during pregnancy.

The revised Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness Questionnaire: Exploring the factor structure in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Perception of Patient-Centeredness (PPPC) questionnaire was revised, and there is a need for the questionnaire to be tested in diverse primary care populations. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the factor structure of the Revised PPPC questionnaire (PPPC-R) in French-speaking patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: Secondary analysis from baseline data of the French arm of Patient-Centered Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity Study (PACEinMM Study). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult patients with multimorbidity attending primary health-care settings. OUTCOME MEASURES: Exploratory factor analyses were applied to examine the factor structure of the PPPC-R. Cronbach's alpha values were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the whole questionnaire and of each factor explored. RESULTS: There were 301 participants, mean age 61.0, 53.2% female. The PPPC-R showed very good internal consistency, with three factors: Patient-Centered Clinical Method (PCCM) Component 1-Exploring the health, disease and illness experience + PCCM Component 4-Enhancing the patient-clinician relationship (Factor 1); PCCM Component 2-Understanding the whole person (Factor 2); and PCCM Component 3-Finding common ground (Factor 3). There was a good internal consistency within each factor (Cronbach's α = 0.87 for 8 items in Factor 1, 0.77 for 5 items in Factor 2 and 0.87 for 5 items in Factor 3). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The French PPPC-R factor structure was in accordance with the underpinning conceptual model and presented with three factors. Further assessment of its validity and reproducibility are needed to allow its use as a measure of patient's perception of patient-centeredness.

Patients, caregivers and health-care professionals' experience with an interdisciplinary intervention for people with multimorbidity in primary care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity challenges the health-care system and requires innovative approaches. In 2015, a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention was implemented in primary care with the aim of supporting self-management for patients with multimorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions and experiences of health-care professionals, patients and their caregivers with a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention in primary care. DESIGN: A descriptive, qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A purposive sample of 30 participants was recruited from seven family medicine groups including patients, caregivers and health-care professionals (HCPs). Interviews were analysed using Thorne's interpretive description approach. RESULTS: Findings were grouped into the benefits and challenges of participating in the intervention. The programme allowed patients to adopt realistic and adapted objectives; to customize interventions to the patient's reality; and to help patients gain confidence, improve their knowledge, skills and motivation to manage their condition. Interprofessional collaboration eased the exchange of information via team meetings and electronic medical records. Challenges were related to collaboration, communication, coordination of work and integration of newly relocated HCPs mainly due to part-time assignments and staff turnover. HCPs part-time schedules limited their availability and hindered patients' follow-up. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This intervention was useful and rewarding from the HCPs, patients and caregivers' perspective. However, to ensure the success of this complex interdisciplinary intervention, implementers and managers should anticipate organizational barriers such as availability and time management of relocated HCPs.

Connecting People With Multimorbidity to Interprofessional Teams Using Telemedicine.

PURPOSE: Most models for managing chronic disease focus on single diseases. Managing patients with multimorbidity is an increasing challenge in family medicine. We evaluated the feasibility of a novel approach to caring for patients with multimorbidity, performing a case study of TIP-Telemedicine IMPACT (Interprofessional Model of Practice for Aging and Complex Treatments) Plus-a 1-time interprofessional consultation with primary care physicians (PCPs) and their patients in Toronto, Canada. METHODS: We assessed feasibility of the TIP model from the number of referrals from PCPs and emergency departments in Toronto, Canada; the intervention cost; and the satisfaction of patients, PCPs, and team members with the new model. One patient and PCP story highlights the model's impact. We also performed thematic analysis of written feedback. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were referred from 53 PCPs and 4 emergency departments, and 65 PCPs participated in TIP. All 74 patient survey respondents indicated TIP improved their access to interdisciplinary resources, and 97% reported feeling hopeful their conditions would improve as a result. Of 21 PCP survey respondents, 100% reported they would use TIP again, and 90% reported improved confidence in managing their patient's care. Of 87 team member survey respondents, 97% rated TIP as effective. Qualitative findings indicated benefits to both patients and health professionals. The cost was about 22% less than that of a 1-day hospital admission through the emergency department (C$854 vs C$1,088). CONCLUSIONS: TIP is a feasible intervention in multiple primary care settings that gives patients an active role in their health management, supported by their team. The model effectively addresses the needs of the most complex patients and their PCPs.

Identifying musculoskeletal conditions in electronic medical records: a prevalence and validation study using the Deliver Primary Healthcare Information (DELPHI) database.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions are a common presentation in primary care. This study sought to determine the prevalence of MSK conditions in primary care in Ontario and to validate the extent to which health administrative date billing codes accurately represent MSK diagnoses. METHODS: De-identified electronic medical records (EMR) from the DELPHI database in southwestern Ontario, which contains 2493 patients (55.6% female, mean age 50.3 years (SD = 22.2)) and 21,964 encounters (July 1, 2006-June 30, 2010) were used for the analyses. Outcomes included: validation measures of agreement between International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9) diagnostic codes (health administrative data) and International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) diagnoses defined as the reference standard, time to first ICD-9 code, prevalence, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: There were 2940 true positive MSK encounters with primary care practitioners for 998 patients. Performance of the ICD-9 diagnostic codes included sensitivity = 76.5%, specificity = 95.2%, PPV = 94.6%, and NPV = 78.7%, compared to the ICPC reference standard. The majority of 998 patients were coded with both an ICPC and ICD-9 MSK code at their first or second encounter (67.4%). However, 23.5% of patients with the ICPC reference standard MSK were never coded with ICD-9. Four-year prevalence of MSK was 52.3% and varied by age (4.5% 0-17 years, 20.1% 18-44, 42.7% 45-64, and 32.7% 65+). Patients at MSK encounters had a higher number of: investigations (17.9% compared to 9.1%, p < .0001); referrals (17.6% compared to 14.3%, p < .0001); and prescriptions for opioids (17.2% compared to 5.3%, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study determined the prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions in primary care in Ontario using a reference standard definition. The study highlighted the value of using primary care ICPC codes to validate a definition for musculoskeletal conditions. Health administrative data can be used to ascertain the presence of musculoskeletal conditions; however, ICD-9 codes may underrepresent the prevalence of MSK conditions.

A basic model for assessing primary health care electronic medical record data quality.

BACKGROUND: The increased use of electronic medical records (EMRs) in Canadian primary health care practice has resulted in an expansion of the availability of EMR data. Potential users of these data need to understand their quality in relation to the uses to which they are applied. Herein, we propose a basic model for assessing primary health care EMR data quality, comprising a set of data quality measures within four domains. We describe the process of developing and testing this set of measures, share the results of applying these measures in three EMR-derived datasets, and discuss what this reveals about the measures and EMR data quality. The model is offered as a starting point from which data users can refine their own approach, based on their own needs. METHODS: Using an iterative process, measures of EMR data quality were created within four domains: comparability; completeness; correctness; and currency. We used a series of process steps to develop the measures. The measures were then operationalized, and tested within three datasets created from different EMR software products. RESULTS: A set of eleven final measures were created. We were not able to calculate results for several measures in one dataset because of the way the data were collected in that specific EMR. Overall, we found variability in the results of testing the measures (e.g. sensitivity values were highest for diabetes, and lowest for obesity), among datasets (e.g. recording of height), and by patient age and sex (e.g. recording of blood pressure, height and weight). CONCLUSIONS: This paper proposes a basic model for assessing primary health care EMR data quality. We developed and tested multiple measures of data quality, within four domains, in three different EMR-derived primary health care datasets. The results of testing these measures indicated that not all measures could be utilized in all datasets, and illustrated variability in data quality. This is one step forward in creating a standard set of measures of data quality. Nonetheless, each project has unique challenges, and therefore requires its own data quality assessment before proceeding.

The "Patient-centered coordination by a care team" questionnaire achieves satisfactory validity and reliability.

Increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidity challenges health care systems and calls for patient-centered coordination of care. Implementation and evaluation of health policies focusing on the development of patient-centered coordination of care needs valid instruments measuring this dimension of care. The aim of this validation study was to assess the psychometric properties of the French version of the 14-item Patient-Centered Coordination by a Care Team (PCCCT) questionnaire in a primary care setting. PCCCT provides a total score from 0 (worst coordination) to 42 (best coordination). 165 adult patients consulting in primary care with one or more chronic condition(s) completed questionnaires (including PCCCT) at recruitment. After three weeks, participants completed PCCCT again, either by mail (group A) or during a telephone interview (group B). At recruitment, the mean (SD) PCCCT score was 33.3 (7.7). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 2-dimension structure, 8 items relating to patient involvement and 6 items relating to coordination (factors loadings ranging from 0.34 to 0.88). PCCCT score correlated significantly with subscales of Haggerty's continuity questionnaire, Spearman correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) ranging from 0.40 (0.22-0.57) to 0.52 (0.38-0.63). Internal consistency was excellent: Cronbach alpha 0.90 (0.79-0.92). Reliability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.68 (0.55-0.78) for test-retest reliability (group A) and of 0.65 (0.46-0.79) for reliability between the self-administered and the interviewer-administered versions of the questionnaire (group B,). The PCCCT questionnaire presents satisfactory validity and reliability; it can be used for the evaluation of health organizations involving team work in primary care.

What are the effective elements in patient-centered and multimorbidity care? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve patient-centered care for persons with multimorbidity are in constant growth. To date, the emphasis has been on two separate kinds of interventions, those based on a patient-centered care approach with persons with chronic disease and the other ones created specifically for persons with multimorbidity. Their effectiveness in primary healthcare is well documented. Currently, none of these interventions have synthesized a patient-centered care approach for care for multimorbidity. The objective of this project is to determine the particular elements of patient-centered interventions and interventions for persons with multimorbidity that are associated with positive health-related outcomes for patients. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted as the method supports the rapid mapping of the key concepts underpinning a research area and the main sources and types of evidence available. A five-stage approach was adopted: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting results. We searched for interventions for persons with multimorbidity or patient-centered care in primary care. Relevant studies were identified in four systematic reviews (Smith et al. (2012;2016), De Bruin et al. (2012), and Dwamena et al. (2012)). Inductive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four systematic reviews and 98 original studies were reviewed and analysed. Elements of interventions can be grouped into three main types and clustered into seven categories of interventions: 1) Supporting decision process and evidence-based practice; 2) Providing patient-centered approaches; 3) Supporting patient self-management; 4) Providing case/care management; 5) Enhancing interdisciplinary team approach; 6) Developing training for healthcare providers; and 7) Integrating information technology. Providing patient-oriented approaches, self-management support interventions and developing training for healthcare providers were the most frequent categories of interventions with the potential to result in positive impact for patients with chronic diseases. CONCLUSION: This scoping review provides evidence for the adaption of patient-centered interventions for patients with multimorbidity. Findings from this scoping review will inform the development of a toolkit to assist chronic disease prevention and management programs in reorienting patient care.

Neuro-developmental outcome of a large cohort of growth discordant twins.

UNLABELLED: Our aims were to study the effect of birthweight growth discordance (≥20%) on neuro-developmental outcome of monochorionic and dichorionic twins and to compare the relative effects of foetal growth discordance and prematurity on cognitive outcome. We performed a cross-sectional multicentre prospective follow-up study from a cohort of 948 twin pregnancies. One hundred nineteen birthweight-discordant twin pairs were examined (24 monochorionic pairs) and were matched for gestational age at delivery with 111 concordant control pairs. Participants were assessed with the Bayley Scales between 24 and 42 months of age. Analysis was by paired t test for intra-twin pair differences and by multiple linear regression. Compared to the larger twin of a discordant pair, the smaller twin performed significantly worse in cognition (mean composite cognitive score difference = -1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.3-3.1, p = 0.01) and also in language and motor skills. Prematurity prior to 33 weeks' gestation, however, had a far greater impact on cognitive outcomes (mean cognitive composite score difference = -5.8, 95% CI = 1.2-10.5, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Birthweight growth discordance of ≥20% confers an independent adverse effect on long-term neuro-development of the smaller twin. However, prior to 33 weeks' gestation, gestational age at birth adversely affects cognitive development to a greater extent than foetal growth discordance.