A typology of primary care workforce innovations in the United States since 2000.

PURPOSE: Innovative workforce models are being developed and implemented to meet the changing demands of primary care. A literature review was conducted to construct a typology of workforce models used by primary care practices. METHODS: Ovid Medline, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were used to identify published descriptions of the primary care workforce that deviated from what would be expected in the typical practice in the year 2000. Expert consultants identified additional articles that would not show up in a regular computerized search. Full texts of relevant articles were read and matrices for sorting articles were developed. Each article was reviewed and assigned to one of 18 cells in the matrices. Articles within each cell were then read again to identify patterns and develop an understanding of the full spectrum of workforce innovation within each category. RESULTS: This synthesis led to the development of a typology of workforce innovations represented in the literature. Many workforce innovations added personnel to existing practices, whereas others sought to retrain existing personnel or even develop roles outside the traditional practice. Most of these sought to minimize the impact on the existing practice roles and functions, particularly that of physicians. The synthesis also identified recent innovations which attempted to fundamentally transform the existing practice, with transformation being defined as a change in practice members' governing variables or values in regard to their workforce role. CONCLUSIONS: Most conceptualizations of the primary care workforce described in the literature do not reflect the level of innovation needed to meet the needs of the burgeoning numbers of patients with complex health issues, the necessity for roles and identities of physicians to change, and the call for fundamentally redesigned practices. However, we identified 5 key workforce innovation concepts that emerged from the literature: team care, population focus, additional resource support, creating workforce connections, and role change.

Producing knowledge about racial differences: tracing scientists' use of "race" and "ethnicity" from grants to articles.

The research and publication practices by which scientists produce biomedical knowledge about race and ethnicity remain largely unexamined, and most of the existing research looks at the knowledge production process at a single point in time. In light of this, we specifically focus on the questions of whether and in what ways researchers' discussions of race and ethnicity change over the course of the research process by comparing grant proposals to published articles. Using content analysis, we investigated the use of race and ethnicity in 72 grants funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health between 1990 and 1999 and 144 matched articles published between 1996 and 2010, tracing the production of biomedical knowledge from study design to published findings. This is also the first study to look at whether the NIH Inclusion Mandate, which went into effect in June of 1994, changed the way investigators research and write about racial and ethnic differences. In following this knowledge production process, we explore how scientists "deliver" on their research proposal goals. In addition, we provide insight into whether and how state policies directed at guiding research practices can shape output.