Assessment and management patterns for chronic musculoskeletal pain in the family practice setting.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects 11% of the US population. Most patients who experience pain, particularly chronic musculoskeletal pain, seek care in primary care settings. Assessment of the patient pain experience is the cornerstone to optimal pain management; however, pain assessment remains a challenge for medical professionals. It is unknown to what extent the assessment of pain intensity is considered in context of function and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To understand common practices related to assessment of pain and function in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A 42-item electronic survey was developed with self-reported numeric ratings and responses related to knowledge, beliefs, and current practices. All physicians and non-physician clinicians affiliated with the AAFP NRN and 2000 AAFP physician members were invited to participate. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Primary care clinicians report that chronic joint pain assessment should be comprehensive, citing assessment elements that align with the comprehensive pain assessment models. Pain intensity remains the primary focus of pain assessment in chronic joint pain and the most important factor in guiding treatment decisions, despite well-known limitations. Clinicians also report that patients with osteoarthritis should be treated by Family Medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Pain assessment is primarily limited to pain intensity scales which may contribute to worse patient outcomes. Given that most respondents believe primary care/family medicine should be primary responsible for the care of patients with osteoarthritis, awareness of and comfort with existing guidelines, validated assessment instruments and the comprehensive pain assessment models could contribute to delivery of more comprehensive care.

Research interests of family physicians applying for research training.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing need for research to support the practice of high quality family medicine. The Family Medicine Discovers Rapid Cycle Scientific Discovery and Innovation (FMD RapSDI) program is designed to build capacity for family medicine scientific discovery and innovation in the United States. Our objective was to describe the applicants and research questions submitted to the RapSDI program in 2019 and 2020. METHODS: Descriptive analysis for applicant characteristics and rapid qualitative analysis using principles of grounded theory and content analysis to examine the research questions and associated themes. We examined differences by year of application submission and the applicant's career stage. RESULTS: Sixty-five family physicians submitted 70 applications to the RapSDI program; 45 in 2019 and 25 in 2020. 41% of applicants were in practice for five years or less (n = 27), 18% (n = 12) were in in practice 6-10 years, and 40% (n = 26) were ≥ 11 years in practice. With significant diversity in questions, the most common themes were studies of new innovations (n = 20, 28%), interventions to reduce cost (n = 20, 28%), improving screening or diagnosis (n = 19, 27%), ways to address mental or behavioral health (n = 18, 26%), and improving care for vulnerable populations (n = 18, 26%). CONCLUSION: Applicants proposed a range of research questions and described why family medicine is optimally suited to address the questions. Applicants had a desire to develop knowledge to help other family physicians, their patients, and their communities. Findings from this study can help inform other family medicine research capacity building initiatives.

Refugee and migrants' involvement in participatory spaces in a US practice-based research network study: Responding to unanticipated priorities.

BACKGROUND: Refugees and migrants face suboptimal involvement in spaces for primary healthcare decision-making. Given the rising numbers of resettled refugees and migrants in primary care settings in the United States, there is an urgent need for patient-centred outcome research in practice-based research networks (PBRNs) with diverse ethnolinguistic communities. This study explored whether researchers, clinicians and patients would achieve consensus on (1) a common set of clinical problems that were applicable across a PBRN and (2) potential clinical interventions to address those problems to inform a patient-centred outcomes research (PCOR) study in a similar research network. METHODS: In this qualitative participatory health research study, patients from diverse ethnolinguistic communities and clinicians from seven practices in a US PBRN discussed preferences for PCOR responsive to patients and the clinicians who serve them in language-discordant settings. Researchers and an advisory panel that included patients and clinicians from each participating practice held regular advisory meetings to monitor progress on project milestones and solve emerging problems. Participants took part in 10 sessions using Participatory Learning in Action and the World Café methods to identify and prioritise their ideas, using questions set for them by the advisory panel. Data were analysed based on principles of qualitative thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified common barriers in language-discordant healthcare settings, principally patient-clinician communication barriers and suggestions to overcome these barriers. A key finding was an unanticipated consensus about the need for attention to healthcare processes rather than a clinical research priority. Negotiation with research funders enabled further analysis of potential interventions for care processes to improve communication and shared decision-making in consultations and the practice as a whole. CONCLUSION: PCOR studies should examine interventions for improving communication between patients from diverse ethnolinguistic communities and primary care staff if the sorts of harms experienced by patients experiencing language-discordant healthcare are to be reduced or prevented. Flexibility and responsiveness from funders to unanticipated findings are key structural supports for participatory health research in primary care clinical settings with this population and others who experience marginalisation and exclusion. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians participated in the study both in the formulation of the study question, data collection, analysis and dissemination of these results; consented to their individual participation; and reviewed early drafts of the manuscript.

Evaluating a Web-Based Adult ADHD Toolkit for Primary Care Clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 5% of the US adult population has Attention Deficient Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) that can negatively impact quality of life. Health care professionals report a need to increase their knowledge of and confidence in treating adult ADHD. The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN) collaborated with a panel of experts to create a web-based AAFP Adult ADHD Toolkit composed of resources to aid in the diagnosis, management, and treatment of adults with ADHD. OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of using an AAFP Adult ADHD Toolkit in a practice setting. METHODS: Ninety-seven primary and behavioral health care professionals from AAFP NRN practices (n=6) used the Toolkit for 17 weeks. Data on Toolkit use, usefulness, implementation, impact, and changes in knowledge and confidence were collected via pre-post and weekly surveys. Mixed methods, regression analyses, t-tests, and mixed ANOVA were used to assess change over time. RESULTS: Use of the Toolkit improved health care providers' knowledge by midpoint relative to baseline in areas related to treatment effects, side effects, and outcomes (3.6 vs 3.0; P = .004); existing ADHD resources (3.3 vs 2.9; P = .03); and management of ADHD in patients with comorbid conditions (3.2 vs 2.7; P = .01). By the end of the study, Toolkit use was associated with increased confidence in mental health and life history interview techniques (3.5 vs 3.0; P = .03); treatment options for ADHD with comorbid mental health disorders (3.2 vs 2.3; P ≤ .001); and treatment options for ADHD with coexisting substance use disorders (3.0 vs 2.3; P = .003). By the end of the study, most participants (n=47, 87%) reported the Toolkit addressed most of their needs related to diagnosis, treatment, and management of adult ADHD. CONCLUSION: Availability and adoption of the Toolkit into the routine care of adults with ADHD measurably increased health care professionals' knowledge especially in those providers who regularly see adult patients with ADHD.

Informing the American Academy of family Physician's Health Equity strategy - an environmental scan using the Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Many organizations have prioritized health equity and the social determinants of health (SDoH). These organizations need information to inform their planning, but, relatively few quantifiable measures exist. This study was conducted as an environmental scan to inform the American Academy of Family Physician's (AAFP's) health equity strategy. The objectives of the study were to identify and prioritize a comprehensive list of strategies in four focus areas: health equity leadership, policy, research, and diversity. METHODS: A Delphi study was used to identify and prioritize the most important strategies for reducing health inequities among the four aforementioned focus areas. Health equity experts were purposefully sampled. Data were collected in three rounds for each focus area separately. A comprehensive list of strategy statements was identified for each focus area in round one. The strategy statements were prioritized in round two and reprioritized in a final third round. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated for the final analysis. RESULTS: Fifty strategies were identified across the four focus areas. Commitment to health equity, knowledge of health inequities, and knowledge of effective strategies to address the drivers of health inequities were ranked the highest for leadership. Universal access to health care and health in all policies were ranked highest for policy. Multi-level interventions, the effect of policy, governance, and politics, and translating and disseminating health equity interventions into practice were ranked the highest for research. Providing financial support to students from minority or low-socioeconomic backgrounds, commitment from undergraduate and medical school leadership for educational equity, providing opportunities for students from minority or low-socioeconomic backgrounds to prepare for standardized tests, and equitable primary and secondary school funding were ranked highest for diversity. CONCLUSIONS: The AAFP and other medical specialty societies have an important opportunity to advance health equity. They should develop a health equity policy agenda, equip physicians and other stakeholders, use their connections with practice-based research networks to identify and translate practical solutions to address the SDoH, and advocate for a more diverse medical workforce. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.