Harmonization of clinical practice guidelines for primary prevention and screening: actionable recommendations and resources for primary care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program. METHODS: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations. RESULTS: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care.

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment. INTERVENTION: 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN21333761.

Results from the BETTER WISE trial: a pragmatic cluster two arm parallel randomized controlled trial for primary prevention and screening in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. METHODS: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40-65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. RESULTS: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.

PURPOSE: The BETTER WISE (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care for Wellness of Cancer Survivors and Patients) intervention is an evidence-based approach to prevention and screening for cancers and chronic diseases in primary care that also includes comprehensive follow-up for breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the process of harmonizing cancer survivorship guidelines to create a BETTER WISE cancer surveillance algorithm and describe both the quantitative and qualitative findings for BETTER WISE participants who were breast, prostate or colorectal cancer survivors. We describe the results in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed high-quality survivorship guidelines to create a cancer surveillance algorithm. We conducted a cluster randomized trial in three Canadian provinces with two composite index outcome measured 12 months after baseline, and also collected qualitative feedback on the intervention. RESULTS: There were 80 cancer survivors for whom we had baseline and follow-up data. Differences between the composite indices in the two study arms were not statistically significant, although a post hoc analysis suggested the COVID-19 pandemic was a key factor in these results. Qualitative finding suggested that participants and stakeholders generally viewed BETTER WISE positively and emphasized the effects of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: BETTER WISE shows promise for providing an evidence-based, patient-centred, comprehensive approach to prevention, screening and cancer surveillance for cancer survivors in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on December 19, 2016, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761 .

The Effects of Cancer Beliefs and Sociodemographic Factors on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviours in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Objectives: This study investigated the beliefs about cancer treatment, outcomes, and screening among adults aged 50−74 in Newfoundland and Labrador and whether these beliefs or sociodemographic factors were associated with differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behaviours. Methods: This analysis uses data collected from an online survey of adults on cancer awareness and prevention in NL. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in distributions of beliefs based on CRC screening behaviour. Logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic factors independently associated with CRC screening behaviour. Results: A total of 724 participants were included in the analysis, 57.4% of which had ever had CRC screening. Most held positive beliefs about cancer outcomes and treatment. Only beliefs about screening affected CRC screening behaviour. People who never had CRC screening were more likely to believe their worries about what might be found would prevent them from screening (χ2 = 9.380, p = 0.009); screening is only necessary if they have symptoms (χ2 = 15.680, p < 0.001); and screening has a high risk of leading to unnecessary surgery (χ2 = 6.824, p = 0.032). Regression identified that men had higher likelihood of having had CRC screening than women in our study (OR = 1.689, 95%CI = 1.135−2.515), as did all age groups compared to ages 50−54. No associations were found with the other sociodemographic factors studied. Conclusion: Beliefs about cancer screening appear to play some role in CRC screening behaviour, but the absolute effect was small. The relatively few sociodemographic associations with screening behaviour suggest that NL's CRC screening program is equitably reaching people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Sociodemographics and their impacts on risk factor awareness and beliefs about cancer and screening: results from a cross-sectional study in Newfoundland and Labrador.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to examine cancer risk factor awareness and beliefs about cancer treatment, outcomes, and screening, and how these are mediated by sociodemographic variables, among Newfoundland and Labrador residents. METHODS: Participants aged 35 to 74 were recruited through Facebook advertising, and a self-administered online questionnaire was used to collect data. Descriptive statistics, Spearman rank correlations, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 1048 participants who responded and met the inclusion criteria for this study, 1019 were selected for this analysis. Risk factor recognition was generally good, though several risk factors had poor awareness: being over 70 years old (53.4% respondents aware), having a low-fiber diet (65.0%), and drinking more than 1 unit of alcohol per day (62.8%). Our results showed that the participants' awareness of risk factors was significantly associated with higher income level (rs = 0.237, P <  0.001), higher education (rs = 0.231, P <  0.001), living in rural regions (rs = 0.163, P <  0.001), and having a regular healthcare provider (rs = 0.081, P = 0.010). Logistic regression showed that among NL residents in our sample, those with higher income, post-secondary education, those in very good or excellent health, and those with a history of cancer all had higher odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer treatment and outcomes. Those with a history of cancer, and those with very good or excellent health, also had higher odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer screening. Finally, compared to Caucasian/white participants, those who were non-Caucasian/white had lower odds of having more positive beliefs about cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Among adults in NL, there was poor awareness that low-fiber diets, alcohol, and age are risk factors for cancer. Lower income and education, rural residence, and not having a health care provider were associated with lower risk factor awareness. We also found a few associations between sociodemographic factors and beliefs about cancer treatment and outcomes or screening. We stress that while addressing awareness is necessary, so too is improving social circumstances of disadvantaged groups who lack the resources necessary to adopt healthy behaviours.

The effectiveness of a proven chronic disease prevention and screening intervention in diverse and remote primary care settings: an implementation study on the BETTER 2 Program.

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) randomised control trial (RCT) showed that the BETTER Program improved chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) by 32.5% in urban team-based primary care clinics. AIM: To evaluate outcomes from implementation of BETTER in diverse clinical settings. DESIGN & SETTING: An implementation study was undertaken to apply the CDPS intervention from the BETTER trial to diverse settings in BETTER 2. Patients aged 40-65 years were invited to enrol in the study from three clinics in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. METHOD: At baseline, eligibility for 27 CDPS actions (for example, cancer, diabetes and hypertension screening, lifestyle) was determined. Patients then met with a trained provider and prioritised goals to address their eligible CDPS actions. Providers received training in behaviour change theory and practice. Descriptive analysis of clinical outcomes and success factors were reported. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients (119 female and 35 male) had a baseline visit; 106 had complete outcome assessments, and the remainder had partial outcome assessments. At baseline, patients were eligible for a mean of 12.3 CDPS actions and achieved a mean of 6.0 (49%, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 24% to 74%) at 6-month follow-up, including reduced hypertension (86% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 67% to 96%), weight control (51% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 42% to 60%), and smoking cessation (36% of eligible patients, 95% CI = 17% to 59%). Male, highly educated, and lower income individuals achieved a higher proportion of CDPS manoeuvers than their counterparts. CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes from this implementation study were comparable with those of the prior BETTER RCT, providing support for the BETTER Program as an effective approach to CDPS in more diverse general practice settings.

Using Facebook Advertising to Recruit Representative Samples: Feasibility Assessment of a Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Facebook has shown promise as an economical means of recruiting participants for health research. However, few studies have evaluated this recruitment method in Canada, fewer still targeting older adults, and, to our knowledge, none specifically in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess Facebook advertising as an economical means of recruiting a representative sample of adults aged 35 to 74 years in NL for a cross-sectional health survey. METHODS: Facebook advertising was used to recruit for a Web-based survey on cancer awareness and prevention during April and May 2018; during recruitment, additional advertisements were targeted to increase representation of demographics that we identified as being underrepresented in our sample. Sociodemographic and health characteristics of the study sample were compared with distributions of the underlying population to determine representativeness. Cramer V indicates the magnitude of the difference between the sample and population distributions, interpreted as small (Cramer V=0.10), medium (0.30), and large (0.50). Sample characteristics were considered representative if there was no statistically significant difference in distributions (chi-square P>.01) or if the difference was small (V≤0.10), and practically representative if 0.10

Primary health care services for patients with chronic disease in Newfoundland and Labrador: a descriptive analysis.

BACKGROUND: Newfoundland and Labrador has a rapidly aging population, much of which is rural, with poor health behaviours and high rates of chronic disease. These factors contribute to a unique challenge in health care delivery. Our aim was to describe the availability of publicly funded primary health care programs and services delivered by regional health authorities across the province. METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis using data from a cross-sectional provincial primary health care survey deployed across Newfoundland and Labrador. Survey data included location, disease-specific chronic disease prevention programming, types of routine primary care, allied health prevention and promotion, chronic disease prevention and management services, and team-based care. The mode of service delivery was identified for most programs and services. RESULTS: Surveys were returned by 153 sites (99.4% response rate). Family physician services were available at 66% of sites (95/145) and nurse practitioner services were available at 51% (74/144) of sites. Many sites offered screening for cervical (60%, 86/144), colon (42%, 59/142) and prostate cancers (43%, 60/141), in addition to various self-management and education services. Allied health services, such as clinical nutrition counselling (47%, 68/46) and occupational therapy (46%, 68/147), were available at many sites. Available health care services were most often offered by on-site staff, and few sites provided primary health care services through telehealth. Overall, rural sites offered a greater variety of services than urban sites. INTERPRETATION: Considerable variability exists in the range of primary health care services available across Newfoundland and Labrador, with limited delivery of some programs and services. Future research should examine how availability of programs and services affects health outcomes and costs.

The BETTER WISE protocol: building on existing tools to improve cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care for wellness of cancer survivors and patients - a cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design.

BACKGROUND: There is a pressing need to reduce the burden of chronic disease and improve healthcare system sustainability through improved cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) in primary care. We aim to create an integrated approach that addresses the needs of the general population and the special concerns of cancer survivors. Building on previous research, we will develop, implement, and test the effectiveness of an approach that proactively targets patients to attend an individualized CCDPS intervention delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP). The objective is to determine if patients randomized to receive an individualized PP visit (vs standard care) have improved cancer surveillance and CCDPS outcomes. Implementation frameworks will help identify and address facilitators and barriers to the approach and inform future dissemination and uptake. METHODS/DESIGN: The BETTER WISE project is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial embedded in a mixed methods design, including a qualitative evaluation and an economic assessment. The intervention, informed by the expanded chronic care model and previous research, will be refined by engaging researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and patients. The BETTER WISE tool kit includes blended care pathways for cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, prostate) and CCDPS including lifestyle risk factors and screening for poverty. Patients aged 40-65, including both cancer survivors and general population patients, will be randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. Once the intervention is completed, patients randomized to wait-list control will be invited to receive a prevention visit. The main outcome, calculated at 12-months follow-up, will be an individual patient-level summary composite index, defined as the proportion of CCDPS actions achieved relative to those for which the patient was eligible at baseline. A qualitative evaluation will capture information related to program outcome, implementation (facilitators and barriers), and sustainability. An economic assessment will examine the projected cost-benefit impact of investing in the BETTER WISE approach. DISCUSSION: This project builds on existing work and engages end users throughout the process to develop, implement, and determine the effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention that addresses CCDPS and cancer survivorship in primary care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21333761 . Registered on December 19, 2016.

Implementation of the BETTER 2 program: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators of a novel way to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care.

BACKGROUND: BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. METHODS: We collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation. RESULTS: The following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics-complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting-perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients' needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners-interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting-the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process-planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

BACKGROUND: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada. METHODS: A clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing. RESULTS: The tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: The integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 .

Implementing and evaluating a program to facilitate chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: a mixed methods program evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: The BETTER 2 program aims to expand the implementation of the intervention used in the original BETTER trial into communities across Canada (Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia). This proactive approach provides at-risk patients with an intervention from the prevention practitioner, a health-care professional. Using the BETTER toolkit, the prevention practitioner determines which CDPS actions the patient is eligible to receive, and through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, develops a unique and individualized 'prevention prescription' with the patient. This intervention is 1) personalized; 2) addressing multiple conditions; 3) integrated through linkages to local, regional, or national resources; and 4) longitudinal by assessing patients over time. The BETTER 2 program brings together primary care providers, policy/decision makers and researchers to work towards improving CDPS in primary care. The target patient population is adults aged 40-65. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintain (RE-AIM) framework will inform the evaluation of the program through qualitative and quantitative methods. A composite index will be used to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the prevention practitioner intervention. The CDPS actions comprising the composite index include the following: process measures, referral/treatment measures, and target/change outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and associated lifestyle factors. DISCUSSION: The BETTER 2 program is a collaborative approach grounded in practice and built from existing work (i.e., integration not creation). The program evaluation is designed to provide an understanding of issues impacting the implementation of an effective approach for CDPS within primary care that may be adapted to become sustainable in the non-research setting.

Maternal outcomes of cesarean sections: do generalists' patients have different outcomes than specialists' patients?

OBJECTIVE: To compare maternal outcomes of cesarean sections performed by GPs with the outcomes of those performed by specialists. DESIGN: Retrospective, comorbidity-adjusted study. SETTING: Mostly small isolated rural hospitals in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan compared with all levels of specialist obstetric programs offered in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen GPs with less than 1 year of surgical training who performed cesarean sections. METHOD: Using data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Discharge Abstracts Database for the years 1990 to 2001, we matched each of 1448 cesarean section cases managed by these GPs to 3 cases managed by specialists and looked for comorbidity. In total, we analyzed the outcomes of 5792 cesarean sections. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Composites of major morbidity possibly attributable to surgery:death, sepsis, cardiac arrest, shock, hypotension, ileus or bowel obstruction,major puerperal infection, septic or fat embolism, postpartum hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy, need for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or another operation; and all major morbidity: major surgical morbidity, acute coronary syndrome, endocarditis, pulmonary edema, cerebrovascular disorder, pneumothorax, respiratory failure, amniotic fluid embolism, complications of anesthesia, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, acute renal failure, and need for mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The rate of all major morbidity was higher among GPs' patients than among specialists' patients (3.1% vs 1.9%, odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 2.3, P = .009) as was the rate of major surgical morbidity (2.5% vs 1.6%, OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4, P = .024). Differences in major morbidity variables were not significant if major postpartum infection was excluded (all major morbidity 1.5% vs 1.1%, major surgical morbidity 1.0% vs 0.8%). Secondary outcomes included rate of transfer to acute care institutions (6.0% vs 1.5%, OR 4.6, 95% CI 3.6 to 6.5, P < .001), mean length of hospital stay (5.2 vs 4.9 days, P= .006), need for blood transfusion (5.9% vs 7.0%, OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.1, P = .11) and frequency of surgical error (0.8% vs 0.7%, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.3, P = .72). CONCLUSION: Although major morbidity was higher among GPs' patients, differences were entirely attributable to the rate of postpartum infection. Infection rates in both groups were far below expected rates. The observation that blood transfusion and surgical error rates were similar suggests that surgical technique was not the cause of differences between groups. We conclude that these GPs with a mean of 4 months' training subsequently performed cesarean sections with an acceptable degree of safety compared with specialists.