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?

Patient vs. Community Engagement: Emerging Issues.

BACKGROUND: The value proposition of including patients at each step of the research process is that patient perspectives and preferences can have a positive impact on both the science and the outcomes of comparative effectiveness research. How to accomplish engagement and the extent to which approaches to community engagement inform strategies for effective patient engagement need to be examined to address conducting and accelerating comparative effectiveness research. OBJECTIVES: To examine how various perspectives and diverse training lead investigators and patients to conflicting positions on how best to advance patient engagement. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative methods were used to collect perspectives and models of engagement from a diverse group of patients, researchers and clinicians. The project culminated with a workshop involving these stakeholders. The workshop used a novel approach, combining World Café and Future Search techniques, to compare and contrast aspects of patient engagement and community engagement. SUBJECTS: Participants included patients, researchers, and clinicians. MEASURES: Group and workshop discussions provided the consensus on topics related to patient and community engagement. RESULTS: Participants developed and refined a framework that compares and contrasts features associated with patient and community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient and community engagement may share a similar approach to engagement based on trust and mutual benefit, there may be distinctive aspects that require a unique lexicon, strategies, tactics, and activities.

How Equity-Oriented Health Care Affects Health: Key Mechanisms and Implications for Primary Health Care Practice and Policy.

Policy Points A consensus regarding the need to orient health systems to address inequities is emerging, with much of this discussion targeting population health interventions and indicators. We know less about applying these approaches to primary health care. This study empirically demonstrates that providing more equity-oriented health care (EOHC) in primary health care, including trauma- and violence-informed, culturally safe, and contextually tailored care, predicts improved health outcomes across time for people living in marginalizing conditions. This is achieved by enhancing patients' comfort and confidence in their care and their own confidence in preventing and managing health problems. This promising new evidence suggests that equity-oriented interventions at the point of care can begin to shift inequities in health outcomes for those with the greatest need. CONTEXT: Significant attention has been directed toward addressing health inequities at the population health and systems levels, yet little progress has been made in identifying approaches to reduce health inequities through clinical care, particularly in a primary health care context. Although the provision of equity-oriented health care (EOHC) is widely assumed to lead to improvements in patients' health outcomes, little empirical evidence supports this claim. To remedy this, we tested whether more EOHC predicts more positive patient health outcomes and identified selected mediators of this relationship. METHODS: Our analysis uses longitudinal data from 395 patients recruited from 4 primary health care clinics serving people living in marginalizing conditions. The participants completed 4 structured interviews composed of self-report measures and survey questions over a 2-year period. Using path analysis techniques, we tested a hypothesized model of the process through which patients' perceptions of EOHC led to improvements in self-reported health outcomes (quality of life, chronic pain disability, and posttraumatic stress [PTSD] and depressive symptoms), including particular covariates of health outcomes (age, gender, financial strain, experiences of discrimination). FINDINGS: Over a 24-month period, higher levels of EOHC predicted greater patient comfort and confidence in the health care patients received, leading to increased confidence to prevent and manage their health problems, which, in turn, improved health outcomes (depressive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, chronic pain, and quality of life). In addition, financial strain and experiences of discrimination had significant negative effects on all health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to demonstrate empirically that providing more EOHC predicts better patient health outcomes over time. At a policy level, this research supports investments in equity-focused organizational and provider-level processes in primary health care as a means of improving patients' health, particularly for those living in marginalizing conditions. Whether these results are robust in different patient groups and across a broader range of health care contexts requires further study.

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.

Surgical culture in transition: gender matters and generation counts.

BACKGROUND: We sought to study the impact of the change in gender balance and the shift in generational beliefs on the practice of surgery. METHODS: We used in-depth, individual, semistructured interviews to explore the ideas, perceptions and experiences of recently recruited academic surgeons regarding the role of gender and the influence of the changing attitudes of this generation on the work environment. All the interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The data analysis was both iterative and interpretative. RESULTS: Nine women and 8 men participated in the study. All participants stated that departmental expectations regarding their performance as clinicians and as academics were not influenced by gender. However, further exploration revealed how gender did influence the way they sought to balance their personal and professional lives. Women in particular struggled with attaining this balance. While maternity leave was endorsed by both men and women, the challenging logistics associated with such leave were noted. Our data also revealed a generational shift among men and women in terms of the importance of the balance between their personal and professional lives. Participants saw this priority as radically different from that of their senior colleagues. CONCLUSION: Gender and the shift in generational attitudes are changing the culture of academic surgery, often described as the prototypical male-dominated medical environment. These changes may reflect the changing face of medicine.

CONTEXTE: Les changements générationnels observés sur le plan de la répartition hommes:femmes et sur le plan des attitudes exercent un impact sur la pratique de la chirurgie et nous avons voulu mesurer cet impact. MÉTHODES: Nous avons utilisé des entrevues de fond individuelles semi-structurées pour explorer les opinions, les perceptions et les expériences de chirurgiens frais émoulus des universités quant à l'influence exercée sur le monde du travail par les changements qui touchent la répartition hommes:femmes et les attitudes de la présente génération. Toutes les entrevues ont été enregistrées et transcrites textuellement. L'analyse des données s'est faite de manière itérative et interprétative. RÉSULTANTS: Neuf femmes et 8 hommes ont participé à l'étude. Tous les participants ont affirmé que les attentes départementales à l'endroit de leur rendement en tant que médecins et en tant qu'universitaires n'ont subi aucune influence de leur appartenance à un sexe ou à l'autre. Toutefois, une analyse plus approfondie a révélé en quoi l'appartenance à l'un ou l'autre sexe exerçait une influence sur la recherche de la conciliation entre vie personnelle et professionnelle : les femmes luttaient plus particulièrement pour atteindre cet équilibre. Le congé de maternité recevait l'aval des hommes autant que des femmes, mais les répondants ont mentionné les défis logistiques qui lui sont associés. Nos données ont aussi révélé une distinction générationnelle entre les hommes et les femmes pour ce qui est de l'importance de l'équilibre entre les dimensions personnelles et professionnelles de leur vie. Les participants ont accordé à cette priorité une importance radicalement différente comparativement à leurs collègues plus âgés. CONCLUSIONS: Les changements générationnels de la répartition hommes:femmes et les changements d'attitudes modifient la culture de la chirurgie dans les établissements universitaires, souvent décrits comme un environnement médical surtout dominé par les hommes. Ces changements pourraient modifier le visage de la médecine.

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.

It's a matter of values: partnership for innovative change.

We need new ways of thinking and of working in order to accommodate the complexity of the challenges in and urgent need for health system innovation and change. Solution seeking must begin with the convergence of two driving imperatives: the need to ground partnership in shared values and the need for systems thinking. The authors see three core value perspectives as central to partnerships for change: a patient- and family-centred social responsibility and equity paradigm, a commitment to changing outcomes and an evidence-informed strategy that integrates needs for research and knowledge translation. These imperatives can be expressed as a simple value stream: (1) articulate the shared values foundation of key partners; (2) express a common vision for changes needed; (3) develop a governance framework articulating roles, accountability and decision-making; (4) collaborate on an integrated intervention plan that takes complexity into account; and (5) ensure continuous improvement based on measured outcomes. The authors link this value stream to a six-point framework of guiding principles for innovation and implementation and discuss these six principles: values, systems, thinking, leadership, governance, learning networks and innovation research. Working partnerships among government, health services researchers and academic health science networks are essential if innovative change is to be implemented and sustained.

Understanding compassion in family medicine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients and physicians have traditionally valued compassion; however, there is concern that physician compassion has declined with the increasing emphasis on science and technology in medicine. Although the literature on compassion is growing, very little is known about how family physicians experience compassion in their work. AIM: To explore family physicians' capacity for and experiences of compassion in practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study designed using a phenomenological approach in rural and urban Ontario, Canada. METHOD: In-depth interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, followed by independent and team coding. An iterative and interpretive analysis was conducted using immersion and crystallisation techniques. Purposive sampling recruited 22 participants (nine males and 13 females aged 26-64 years) that included family medicine residents from Western University (n = 6), and family physicians practising <5 years (n = 7) or >10 years (n = 9) in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: From the data, the authors derived the Compassion Trichotomy as a theoretical model to describe three interrelated areas that determine the evolution or devolution of compassion experienced by family physicians: motivation (core values), capacity (energy), and connection (relationship). CONCLUSION: The Compassion Trichotomy highlights the importance and interdependence in physician compassion of motivation (personal reflection and values), capacity (awareness and regulation of energy, emotion, and cognition), and connection (sustained patient-physician relationship). This model may assist practising family physicians, educators, and researchers to explore how compassion development might enhance physician effectiveness and satisfaction.

Evaluating complex transformation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed case study of the evaluation strategies of a complex, multi-faceted response to a public health emergency: drug-related overdose deaths. It sets out the challenges of evaluating such a complex response and how they were overcome. It provides a pragmatic example of the rationale and issues faced to address the what, the why and particularly the how of the evaluation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The case study overviews British Columbia's Provincial Response to the Overdose Public Health Emergency, and the aims and scope of its evaluation. It then outlines the conceptual approach taken to the evaluation, setting out key methodological challenges in evaluating large-scale, multi-level, multisectoral change. FINDINGS: The evaluation is developmental and summative, utilization focused and system informed. Defining the scope of the evaluation required a strong level of engagement with government leads, grantees and other evaluation stakeholders. Mixed method evaluation will be used to capture the complex pattern of relationships that have informed the overdose response. Working alongside people with drug use experience to both plan and inform the evaluation is critical to its success. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study builds on a growing literature on evaluating large-scale and complex service transformation, providing a practical example of this.