Exploring settings as social complex adaptive systems in setting-based health research: a scoping review.

Since launching health health-promoting settings approach to health by WHO, valuable progress has happened in implementing its holistic concepts in settings such as cities, schools, workplaces, hospitals and healthcare services. However, significant knowledge-intention-success gaps still exist in creating sustainable health-promoting changes in settings. The complexity of the task of bridging this gap has contributed to the call for a complexity-informed paradigm shift to health as well as settings, followed by increasing consultation of relevant complexity theories, frameworks and tools in health research. This paper provides a critical scoping review of the application of complex adaptive system (CAS) theory in settings-based health promotion research. We included 14 papers, mostly qualitative studies, reporting on planning or implementation of change initiatives, less on its evaluation. CAS theory application was often incomplete thereby reducing the potential benefit of using this lens to understand change management. We suggest some recommendations how to comprehensively apply the CAS theory in setting-based health research and to report on all CAS characteristics to enhance the understanding of settings as adaptive health-promoting settings.

"The measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice" - insights of the PRICOV-19 study on German general practitioners in times of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The international study PRICOV-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on German general practitioners during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) How were changes in tasks on primary care and patient treatment perceived by GPs?, (2) What was the role of GPs during the pandemic, and how was their wellbeing?, (3) How did GPs perceive health policy measures?, and, (4) What influenced the attitudes of GPs on health policy measures? METHODS: This study pursues a multi-country cross-sectional design. Data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02. to 28.02.2021 with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items. The questionnaire was analysed through descriptive and inferential analyses using correlation and multiple regression models. RESULTS: The response rate was 20.4% (n = 349). The respondents were mainly GPs (59.6%) in single practices (62.5%) with a mean work experience of 15 to 20 years. GPs experienced a change in their work and practice organisation (80.3%). They felt a high responsibility (70.6%) and found their work has become more meaningful to them (76%). They also saw a lack of political support (75.2%) and that the measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice (66.4%). Not many GPs were at risk of being distressed (53.4%) but rated the health policies rather negatively (60%). The multiple regression showed, the more GPs were exposed to risk of distress, the worse they assessed the government's measures. CONCLUSION: GPs perceived their work as relevant and felt confident they could fulfil their tasks, but noticed that health policy initially hardly supported the outpatient sector. Health policies should increase their competence in relation to primary care, ensure its needs and consider an active inclusion of GPs in preparedness plans.

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

The conceptualization of acute bronchitis in general practice - a fuzzy problem with consequences? A qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Acute bronchitis is one of the most frequent diagnoses in primary care. Scientifically, it is conceptualized as a viral infection. Still, general practitioners (GPs) often prescribe antibiotics for acute bronchitis. The explanation for this discrepancy may lie in a different conceptualization of acute bronchitis. Therefore, we wanted to know, how GPs conceptualize acute bronchitis, and how they differentiate it from common cold and pneumonia. Furthermore, we tried to find out the GPs' reasons for prescribing antibiotics in those cases. METHODS: To answer our study questions, we conducted a qualitative study with GPs in Bavaria, Germany, by using semi-structured guided interviews. The analysis of the data was conducted using the documentary method according to Ralf Bohnsack. The transcripts were subdivided into categories. Analyzing each part by reflective interpretation, first manually, secondly with the help of RQDA, we extracted the most representative citations and main messages from the interviews. RESULTS: The term acute bronchitis seems to be applied when there is neither certainty of the diagnosis common cold, nor of pneumonia. It seems it bridges the gap of uncertainty between supposedly harmless clinical pictures (common cold/viral), to the more serious ones (pneumonia/bacterial). The conceptual transitions between common cold and acute bronchitis on the one side, and acute bronchitis and pneumonia on the other are fluid. The diagnosis acute bronchitis cannot solve the problem of uncertainty but seems to be a label to overcome it by offering a way to include different factors such as severity of symptoms, presumed signs of bacterial secondary infection, comorbidities, and presumed expectations of patients. It seems to solve the pathophysiologic riddle of bacterial or viral and of decision making in prescribing antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Acute bronchitis as an "intermediate category" proved difficult to define for the GPs. Applying this diagnosis leaves GPs in abeyance of prescribing an antibiotic or not. As a consequence of this uncertainty in pathophysiologic reasoning (viral or bacterial) other clinical and social factors tip the balance towards antibiotic prescribing. Teaching physicians to better think in probabilities of outcomes instead of pathophysiologic reasoning and to deal with uncertainty might help reducing antibiotic overprescribing.

"What else to say?"-Primary health care in times of COVID-19 from the perspective of German general practitioners: An exploratory analysis of the open text field in the PRICOV-19 study.

BACKGROUND: The international collaboration study PRICOV-19 -Primary Health Care in times of COVID-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on the subjective perceptions of general practitioners on primary health care and the impact of political measures during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this survey, the "open text field" of the questionnaire was utilised remarkably frequently and extensively by the respondents. It became clear that the content that was named needed to be analysed in an exploratory manner. Accordingly, this paper addresses the following question: What preoccupies general practitioners in Germany during COVID-19 that we have not yet asked them enough? METHODS: The data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2021with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items arranged across six topics as well as an "open text field" for further comments. The questionnaire's open text field was analysed following the premises of the qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The topics discussed by the respondents were: insufficient support from health policies, not being prioritised and involved in the vaccination strategy, feeling insufficient prepared, that infrastructural changes and financial concerns threatened the practice, and perceiving the own role as important, as well as that health policies affected the wellbeing of the respondents. One of the main points was the way general practitioners were not sufficiently acknowledged for their contribution to ensuring high-quality care during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: German general practitioners perceived their work and role as highly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. In controversy with their perception, they described political conditions in which they were the ones who contributed significantly to the fight against the pandemic but were not given enough recognition.

The patient satisfaction in primary care consultation-Questionnaire (PiC): An instrument to assess the impact of patient-centred communication on patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Primary care consultation is significantly influenced by communication between the General Practitioner (GP) and their patients. Hypothesising that patient satisfaction can be tested based on an expectation-experience comparison, the aim of this article is to discuss the influence of communication on patient satisfaction. METHODS: A standardised questionnaire was developed striving for a universal primary care survey tool that focuses on patient satisfaction in the context of patient-centred-communication. The sample consisted of 14 German GPs with 80 patients each (n = 1120). Due to the inclusion in an overarching cluster-randomised-study (CRT), the medical practices to be examined were divided into intervention and control groups. The intervention was developed as a reflective training on patient-centred communication. RESULTS: The results in the present sample show no correlation between patient-centred-communication and patient satisfaction. There are also no significant differences between the intervention and control group. DISCUSSION: The results raise the question to what extent patient satisfaction can be shaped significantly through patient-centred-communication. The presented project represents part of the basic research in general medical care research and contributes to the transparent processing of theoretical assumptions. With the results described here, communication models with a focus on patient centredness can be evaluated with regard to their practical relevance and transferability.

Referrals for uncomplicated lower back pain: a cluster parallel randomised trial of patient-centred communication to improve the management of acute back pain in primary care. A study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent encounters in General Practice. Investigation and referral remain common despite the self-limiting character of episodes that are not largely attributable to specific underlying injuries. Identifying patients' ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) is a well-established element within consultation skills training and has been shown to improve prescribing. It can be a powerful communication tool setting the base for transferring and adjusting adequate clinical information. This study aims to evaluate whether ICE can decrease unnecessary medicine in the management of acute LBP in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Research question: Does ICE training intervention have an effect on doctors' referrals of patients suffering from acute LBP? Population: Recruitment to this parallel cluster randomised trial will take place among general practitioners belonging to four independent practice networks in Northern Bavaria/Germany. Intervention: At baseline, 24 out of 48 doctors will be randomly assigned to take part in a 1-day training session covering theoretical background and clinical implementation of patient-centred communication by stimulating ICE. They will also be given access to a web-based supporting tool for reflective practice on their communication skills. Comparison: GPs in the control group will continue consultations as usual. Outcome: Outcome measures are referrals to diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy and specialists obtained from routine practice data, compared between intervention and control group. Time: Referrals of patients consulting their doctors for documented LBP will be monitored up to 3 months after the ICE training intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was obtained by the Ethics Committee of the University Erlangen-Nuremberg (296_17B). Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03711071).