Patient- and Community-Oriented Primary Care Approaches for Health in Rural, Remote and Resource-Dependent Places: Insights for Eco-Social Praxis.

Accelerating ecological and societal changes require re-imagining the role of primary care and public health to address eco-social concerns in rural and remote places. In this narrative review, we searched literatures on: community-oriented primary care, patient-oriented research engagement, public health and primary care synergies, and primary care addressing social determinants of health. Our analysis was guided by questions oriented to utility for addressing concerns of social-ecological systems in rural, remote contexts characterized by a high degree of reliance on resource extraction and development (e.g., forestry, mining, oil and gas, fisheries, agriculture, ranching and/or renewables). We describe a range of useful frameworks, processes and tools that are oriented toward bolstering the resilience and engagement of both primary care and public health, though few explicitly incorporated considerations of eco-social approaches to health or broader eco-social context(s). In synthesizing the existing evidence base for integration between primary care and public health, the results signal that for community-oriented primary care and related frameworks to be useful in rural and remote community settings, practitioners are required to grapple with complexity, durable relationships, sustainable resources, holistic approaches to clinician training, Indigenous perspectives, and governance.

Clinical practitioners' views on the management of patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS): a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: By identifying strategies that practicing physicians use in managing patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS), we present an interim practical management guide (IPMG) that clinical practitioners may find useful in their clinical practices and that may help guide future research. DESIGN: A qualitative research study based on interview data from practicing physicians with experience in dealing with MUPS and known to the physician members of the research team. A parallel exploration of patient experiences was carried out simultaneously and is reported elsewhere. SETTING: 2 urban centres in 2 different Canadian provinces in a healthcare system where family physicians provide the majority of primary care and self-referral to specialists rarely occurs. PARTICIPANTS: The physician members of the research team invited practicing family and specialty physicians to participate in the study. RESULTS: We characterise the care of patients with MUPS in terms of a 4-part framework: (1) the challenge of diagnosis; (2) the challenge of management/treatment; (3) the importance of communication and (4) the importance of the therapeutic relationship. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the details in the different parts of the framework, we propose an IPMG that practitioners may find useful to facilitate the clinical care of patients with MUPS. The guide can be readily implemented into the practice of any physician who cares for patients with MUPS.

Tools for thoughtful action: the role of ecosystem approaches to health in enhancing public health.

The intimate interdependence of human health and the ecosystems in which we are embedded is now a commonplace observation. For much of the history of public health, this was not so obvious. After over a century of focus on diseases, their biologic causes and the correction of exposures (clean water and air) and facilitation of responses (immunizations and nutrition), public health discourse shifted to embrace the concept of determinants of health as extending to social, economic and environmental realms. This moved the discourse and science of public health into an unprecedented level of complexity just as public concern about the environment heightened. To address multifactorial, dynamic impacts on health, a new paradigm was needed which would overcome the separation of humans and ecosystems. Ecosystem approaches to health arose in the 1990s from a rich background of intellectual ferment as Canada wrestled with diverse problems ranging from Great Lakes contamination to zoonotic diseases. Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) played a lead role in supporting an international community of scientists and scholars who advanced ecosystem approaches to health. These collective efforts have enabled a shift to a research paradigm that embraces transdisciplinarity, social justice, gender equity, multi-stakeholder participation and sustainability.

Caring for a common future: medical schools' social accountability.

ORIGINS AND CONTEXT: The concept of 'the social accountability of medical schools' is moving from the peripheral preoccupation of a few to a more central concern of medical schools themselves. Born of concerns about the professionalism and relevance of both the institutions and their graduates, it is seen increasingly as an urgent call to focus the considerable social resources vested in academic health science institutions on addressing the priority health concerns of the societies they serve. For a profession embedded in an ethos of service, this would seem an obvious transition. However, as with any movement towards transformative change, it runs the risk of being more mantra and rhetoric than mandate and responsibility. NEEDED RESPONSE: Proceeding from the assumption that good intentions alone are not enough, this paper seeks to outline the historical development and some current expression of the concept throughout the world. The sadly divergent wealth and health status of modern societies calls for very different actions by medical schools across the spectrum from the least endowed to the wealthiest of schools. In a profession claiming centuries of cohesive commitment to the welfare of others, it is increasingly urgent that the current generation of medical educators converge on a relevant set of principles and coherent activities. TOOLS FOR THE TASK: While recognising that they are closely intertwined, the paper outlines the difference between the social accountability of the institutions themselves and the social accountability of the graduates they produce. It outlines both individual examples and the international initiatives that are fostering and facilitating institutional collaborations to bring both progress and optimism to this daunting task. It provides connections to practical resources for those who are committed to that task. Other papers in this series add further practical insights into the central role that medical educators must play if we are to fulfil the responsibilities we carry with the privilege of our profession.