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.

Collaborative governance of postgraduate medical education: Can it be achieved?

Faced with the need to modernize and improve the postgraduate medical education experience and to maintain the high quality of physicians that Canadians expect, in 2010, four organizations -Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada (AFMC); Collège des Médecins du Québec (CMQ); College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC); and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) formed a consortium to conduct a review of Postgraduate Medical Education (PGME) in Canada. In 2012, the Consortium published the Future of Medical Education in Canada Postgraduate (FMEC PG) project's 10 recommendations for change in PGME. One of these recommendations was to 'Establish Effective Collaborative Governance in PGME'. The recommendation stated- 'Recognizing the complexity of PGME and the health delivery system within which it operates, integrate the multiple bodies (regulatory and certifying colleges, educational and healthcare institutions) that play a role in PGME into a collaborative governance structure in order to achieve efficiency, reduce redundancy, and provide clarity on strategic directions and decisions' The purpose of this paper is to describe the creation, function and dissolution of a collaborative governance structure within the complex system of PGME and the challenges that were faced in its sustainability. The lessons learned are applicable internationally where integration of multiple organizations is being attempted. A fundamental question remains as to whether a consensus-based decision-making process can ever be achieved among organizations with overlapping mandates and in some cases, hierarchical structures?

Disruption as opportunity: Impacts of an organizational health equity intervention in primary care clinics.

BACKGROUND: The health care sector has a significant role to play in fostering equity in the context of widening global social and health inequities. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the process and impacts of implementing an organizational-level health equity intervention aimed at enhancing capacity to provide equity-oriented health care. METHODS: The theoretically-informed and evidence-based intervention known as 'EQUIP' included educational components for staff, and the integration of three key dimensions of equity-oriented care: cultural safety, trauma- and violence-informed care, and tailoring to context. The intervention was implemented at four Canadian primary health care clinics committed to serving marginalized populations including people living in poverty, those facing homelessness, and people living with high levels of trauma, including Indigenous peoples, recent immigrants and refugees. A mixed methods design was used to examine the impacts of the intervention on the clinics' organizational processes and priorities, and on staff. RESULTS: Engagement with the EQUIP intervention prompted increased awareness and confidence related to equity-oriented health care among staff. Importantly, the EQUIP intervention surfaced tensions that mirrored those in the wider community, including those related to racism, the impacts of violence and trauma, and substance use issues. Surfacing these tensions was disruptive but led to focused organizational strategies, for example: working to address structural and interpersonal racism; improving waiting room environments; and changing organizational policies and practices to support harm reduction. The impact of the intervention was enhanced by involving staff from all job categories, developing narratives about the socio-historical context of the communities and populations served, and feeding data back to the clinics about key health issues in the patient population (e.g., levels of depression, trauma symptoms, and chronic pain). However, in line with critiques of complex interventions, EQUIP may not have been maximally disruptive. Organizational characteristics (e.g., funding and leadership) and characteristics of intervention delivery (e.g., timeframe and who delivered the intervention components) shaped the process and impact. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that organizations should anticipate and plan for various types of disruptions, while maximizing opportunities for ownership of the intervention by those within the organization. Our findings further suggest that equity-oriented interventions be paced for intense delivery over a relatively short time frame, be evaluated, particularly with data that can be made available on an ongoing basis, and explicitly include a harm reduction lens.

Engaging with communities, engaging with patients: amendment to the NAPCRG 1998 Policy Statement on Responsible Research With Communities.

Background: In 1998, the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) adopted a groundbreaking Policy Statement endorsing responsible participatory research (PR) with communities. Since that time, PR gained prominence in primary care research. Objectives: To reconsider the original 1998 Policy Statement in light of increased uptake of PR, and suggest future directions and applications for PR in primary care. This work contributed to an updated Policy Statement endorsed by NAPCRG in 2015. Methods: 32 university and 30 community NAPCRG-affiliated research partners, convened a workshop to document lessons learned about implementing processes and principles of PR. This document emerged from that session and reflection and discussion regarding the original Policy Statement, the emerging PR literature, and our own experiences. Results: The foundational principles articulated in the 1998 Policy Statement remain relevant to the current PR environment. Lessons learned since its publication include that the maturation of partnerships is facilitated by participatory processes that support increased community responsibility for research projects, and benefits generated through PR extend beyond research outcomes. Future directions that will move forward the field of PR in primary care include: (i) improve assessment of PR processes to better delineate the links between how PR teams work together and diverse PR outcomes, (ii) increase the number of models incorporating PR into translational research from project inception to dissemination, and (iii) increase application of PR approaches that support patient engagement in clinical settings to patient-provider relationship and practice change research. Conclusion: PR has markedly altered the manner in which primary care research is undertaken in partnership with communities and its principles and philosophies continue to offer means to assure that research results and processes improve the health of all communities.

A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects.

BACKGROUND: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach in which researchers and community stakeholders form equitable partnerships to tackle issues related to community health improvement and knowledge production. Our 2012 realist review of CBPR outcomes reported long-term effects that were touched upon but not fully explained in the retained literature. To further explore such effects, interviews were conducted with academic and community partners of partnerships retained in the review. Realist methodology was used to increase the understanding of what supports partnership synergy in successful long-term CBPR partnerships, and to further document how equitable partnerships can result in numerous benefits including the sustainability of relationships, research and solutions. METHODS: Building on our previous realist review of CBPR, we contacted the authors of longitudinal studies of academic-community partnerships retained in the review. Twenty-four participants (community members and researchers) from 11 partnerships were interviewed. Realist logic of analysis was used, involving middle-range theory, context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOcs) and the concept of the 'ripple effect'. RESULTS: The analysis supports the central importance of developing and strengthening partnership synergy through trust. The ripple effect concept in conjunction with CMOcs showed that a sense of trust amongst CBPR members was a prominent mechanism leading to partnership sustainability. This in turn resulted in population-level outcomes including: (a) sustaining collaborative efforts toward health improvement; (b) generating spin-off projects; and (c) achieving systemic transformations. CONCLUSION: These results add to other studies on improving the science of CBPR in partnerships with a high level of power-sharing and co-governance. Our results suggest sustaining CBPR and achieving unanticipated benefits likely depend on trust-related mechanisms and a continuing commitment to power-sharing. These findings have implications for building successful CBPR partnerships to address challenging public health problems and the complex assessment of outcomes.

Networks to strengthen health systems for chronic disease prevention.

Interorganizational networks that harness the priorities, capacities, and skills of various agencies and individuals have emerged as useful approaches for strengthening preventive services in public health systems. We use examples from the Canadian Heart Health Initiative and Alberta's Primary Care Networks to illustrate characteristics of networks, describe the limitations of existing frameworks for assessing the performance of prevention-oriented networks, and propose a research agenda for guiding future efforts to improve the performance of these initiatives. Prevention-specific assessment strategies that capture relevant aspects of network performance need to be identified, and feedback mechanisms are needed that make better use of these data to drive change in network activities.

Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice.

CONTEXT: Participatory research (PR) is the co-construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Our review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community-engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large-variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle-range theory, demi-regularity, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis. FINDINGS: From 7,167 abstracts and 591 full-text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty-three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context. CONCLUSIONS: We used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory-driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

Factors that influence engagement in collaborative practice: how 8 health professionals became advocates.

OBJECTIVE: To generate hypotheses regarding factors that might influence engagement in collaborative practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth interviews. SETTING: Participants interviewed each other in dyads. The pairing was based upon geographical location and proximity to each other. PARTICIPANTS: Eight professionals from the disciplines of medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and massage therapy. METHOD: Semistructured interviews, lasting 30 to 45 minutes each, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were read by all research team members using independent content analysis for common words, phrases, statements, or units of text for key themes. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting, the team used an iterative process of comparing and contrasting key themes until consensus was reached. The transcripts were then analyzed further for subthemes using NVivo software. MAIN FINDINGS: Initial findings suggest that some common characteristics grounded in family history, school experiences, social interactions, and professional training might influence collaborative practice choices. The narrative form of the interview broke down interpersonal and interprofessional barriers, creating a new level of trust and respect that could improve professional collaboration. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that life experiences from childhood into later adulthood can and do influence professional choices.

Successful strategies to engage research partners for translating evidence into action in community health: a critical review.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a critical review describing key strategies supporting development of participatory research (PR) teams to engage partners for creation and translation of action-oriented knowledge. METHODS: Sources are four leading PR practitioners identified via bibliometric analysis. Authors' publications were identified in January 1995-October 2009 in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science and CAB databases, and books. Works were limited to those with a process description describing a research project and practitioners were first, second, third, or last author. RESULTS: Adapting and applying the "Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects" to retained records identified five key strategies: developing advisory committees of researchers and intended research users; developing research agreements; using formal and informal group facilitation techniques; hiring co-researchers/partners from community; and ensuring frequent communication. Other less frequently mentioned strategies were also identified. CONCLUSION: This review is the first time these guidelines were used to identify key strategies supporting PR projects. They proved effective at identifying and evaluating engagement strategies as reported by completed research projects. Adapting these guidelines identified gaps where the tool was unable to assess fundamental PR elements of power dynamics, equity of resources, and member turnover. Our resulting template serves as a new tool to measure partnerships.

Future of research in family medicine: where to from here?

Desired research outcomes in family medicine vary according to the developmental stage of the discipline and the context of practice. Several milestones in the evolution of family practice research worldwide have been achieved. Now family medicine researchers face the challenge of discovering how evidence-based primary health care can be delivered in a sustainable way to individuals within communities. To advance family medicine research, we must ensure that trainees have a positive research attitude, develop academic clinician-researchers, lobby for primary care research funding, support practitioners who wish to do research in their own practices, sustain practice-based research networks, and study important questions.