Primary Care's Challenges and Responses in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Insights From AHRQ's Learning Community.

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically disrupted health care systems and delivery in the United States. Despite emotional, psychological, logistical, and financial stress, primary care clinicians responded to the challenges that COVID-19 presented and continued to provide essential health services to their communities. As the lead federal agency for primary care research, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified a need to engage and support primary care in responding to COVID-19. AHRQ initiated a learning community from December 2020-November 2021 to connect professionals and organizations that support primary care practices and clinicians. The learning community provided a forum for participants to share learning and peer support, better understand the stressors and challenges confronting practices, ascertain needs, and identify promising solutions in response to the pandemic. We identified challenges, responses, and innovations that emerged through learning community engagement, information sharing, and dialog. We categorized these across 5 domains that reflect core areas integral to primary care delivery: patient-centeredness, clinician and practice, systems and infrastructure, and community and public health; health equity was crosscutting across all domains. The engagement of the community to identify real-time response and innovation in the context of a global pandemic has provided valuable insights to inform future research and policy, improve primary care delivery, and ensure that the community is better prepared to respond and contribute to ongoing and future health challenges.

COVID-19's Financial Impact on Primary Care Clinicians and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted and undermined primary care delivery. The goal of this study was to examine the financial impacts the pandemic has had on primary care clinicians and practices. METHODS: The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network and the Robert Graham Center distributed weekly surveys from March 27, 2020, through June 15, 2020, to a network of more than 1960 physicians. Responses to the question, "Could you please tell us about any financial impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on your practice, if any?" were analyzed using a grounded theory approach of qualitative analysis. The number of unique respondents who answered the financial impact question totaled 461 over the 12 weeks. RESULTS: Severe declines in patient visits, causing drastic revenue reductions, greatly impacted the ability to serve patients. Primary care clinicians and practices experienced significant changes in several areas about financial implications: patient visits, financial strain, staffing and telehealth. DISCUSSION: Preliminary findings revealed that even with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as CARES Act, funding, business viability remains questionable for some primary care practices. CONCLUSIONS: Low patient visits directly resulted in decreased revenues, which in turn, impacted staffing decisions and fueled telehealth implementation. It is difficult to predict whether patient visits will increase after June. Alternate payment models could provide some financial stability and address business viability.

Gender Concordance of First and Senior Authors in Family Medicine Journals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Women have increased in presence within academic family medicine over time yet remain underrepresented among senior faculty. Mentorship is a mechanism by which senior faculty support scholarly achievements, accelerating advancement of junior faculty. METHODS: We analyzed 10 years (2008-2017) of original research articles in three peer-reviewed family medicine journals. We examined first author/last author pairs by gender as a proxy for mentorship of junior faculty by senior faculty. We compiled family medicine faculty data across 9 years to compare trends in scholarly mentorship with faculty advancement. RESULTS: Female last authorship increased from 28.8% (55/191) of original research articles with a first and last author in 2008 to 41.8% (94/225) in 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a female last author was 56.4% in 2008 and 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a male last author increased from 41.2% (56/136) to 55.7% (73/131) between 2008 and 2017. From 2009-2017, the proportion of women increased for assistant, associate, and full professor roles, but remained under 50% for the associate professor role and at 35% for professorship in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Despite disproportionate rates of last authorship and senior faculty positions in family medicine departments, senior female authors have equal if not greater rates of mentorship of female first authors in family medicine literature. The increase in first authorship, last authorship, and faculty position indicates that improvements have occurred in gender advancement over the study period, but gains are still needed to improve gender equity within the field.

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

PURPOSE: Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. RESULTS: For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49). CONCLUSIONS: Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.

Gender Differences in Reported Weekly Work Hours Among Family Physicians.

While women are entering family medicine at higher rates than men, little is known about the present differences in practice patterns between male and female family physicians (FPs). We used 2017 and 2018 American Board of Family Medicine Family Medicine Certification Examination practice demographic questionnaires to assess average weekly total hours and direct patient care hours by age and gender reported by FPs. We found a gender gap between both overall hours worked and direct patient care hours, with female FPs reporting fewer hours across age groups.

Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach.

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research-a core element of high-quality PHC-in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and 'brain drain' may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how to deal with these tensions.

Trends in the Gender Ratio of Authorship at the Robert Graham Center.

Gender disparities in medical publication have been demonstrated in several specialties. This descriptive bibliometric analysis aims to determine the gender ratio of scholarly authorship at the Robert Graham Center (RGC) over an 11-year period. We examined publications by RGC researchers and assessed first, second, and last author gender. Of 229 publications, 65.5% had a male first author and 34.5% had a female first author. Of the 217 publications with a last author, 13.4% had a female last author. This study aims to inform the broader discussion about authorship gender parity in academic medicine using a one-site case-study approach.

Gender Differences in Personal and Organizational Mechanisms to Address Burnout Among Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined how interventions designed to address physician burnout might impact female and male physicians differently. Our aim was to test whether there are gender differences in individual approaches to address burnout and/or in organizational support aimed at physician well-being. METHODS: An online survey was administered in 2019 to family physicians in California and Illinois who are either board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine, a member of their state Academy of Family Physicians, or both. Descriptive statistics and bivariate independence tests were performed for each personal step and organizational support to determine whether there was any gender difference. RESULTS: A total of 2176 family physicians (58% female and 42% male) responded to the survey. A total of 55% of female and 50% of male physicians were burned out. Female physicians were more likely to reduce work hours/go part time and to use domestic help; males were more likely to spend more time on hobbies. Only 8% reported taking no personal steps to address burnout. Male and female physicians reported similar types of organizational support aimed at physician wellness; yet, 20% reported that their organization did not provide any type of well-being support. CONCLUSIONS: We identified gendered differences in physician responses to burnout. Effectively mitigating burnout may require different individual-level approaches and different organizational support mechanisms for female and male physicians.

Despite Adequate Training, Only Half of Family Physicians Provide Women's Health Care Services.

Access to services related to reproductive and sexual health is critical to the health of women but has been threatened in recent years. Family physicians are trained to provide a range of women's health care services and are an essential part of the health care workforce in rural and underserved areas, where access to these services may be limited.

Primary care financing: a systematic assessment of research priorities in low- and middle-income countries.

INTRODUCTION: Financing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC. METHODS: Three-round expert panel consultation using web-based surveys of LMIC PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers sampled from global networks. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. First round (Pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about financing. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised to two lists of questions. Round 2 (Delphi Round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In Round 3 (Delphi Round 2), panellists ranked questions in order of importance. RESULTS: A diverse range of PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers in LMIC representing all global regions identified 479 knowledge gaps as potentially critical to improving PHC financing. Round 2 provided 31 synthesised questions on financing for rating. The top 16 were ranked in Round 3e to produce four prioritised research questions. CONCLUSIONS: This novel exercise created an expansive and prioritised list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC financing research questions. This offers valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation, including research funders and academics seeking research priorities. The source and context specificity of this research, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics on a global and local basis, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing the findings.

Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach.

INTRODUCTION: Since the Alma-Ata Declaration 40 years ago, primary healthcare (PHC) has made great advances, but there is insufficient research on models of care and outcomes-particularly for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic efforts to identify these gaps and develop evidence-based strategies for improvement in LMICs has been lacking. We report on a global effort to identify and prioritise the knowledge needs of PHC practitioners and researchers in LMICs about PHC organisation. METHODS: Three-round modified Delphi using web-based surveys. PHC practitioners and academics and policy-makers from LMICs sampled from global networks. First round (pre-Delphi survey) collated possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organisation. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised. Round 2 (Delphi round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In round 3 (Delphi round 2), panellists ranked questions into final order of importance. Literature review conducted on 36 questions and gap map generated. RESULTS: Diverse range of practitioners and academics in LMICs from all global regions generated 744 questions for PHC organisation. In round 2, 36 synthesised questions on organisation were rated. In round 3, the top 16 questions were ranked to yield four prioritised questions in each area. Literature reviews confirmed gap in evidence on prioritised questions in LMICs. CONCLUSION: In line with the 2018 Astana Declaration, this mixed-methods study has produced a unique list of essential gaps in our knowledge of how best to organise PHC, priority-ordered by LMIC expert informants capable of shaping their mitigation. Research teams in LMIC have developed implementation plans to answer the top four ranked research questions.

Disconnected: a survey of users and nonusers of telehealth and their use of primary care.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to assess awareness, perceptions, and value of telehealth in primary care from the perspective of patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, Web-based survey of adults with access to telehealth services who visited healthcare providers for any of the 20 most-commonly seen diagnoses during telehealth visits. Three groups were studied: registered users (RUs) of telehealth had completed a LiveHealth Online (a health plan telehealth service provider) visit, registered nonusers (RNUs) registered for LiveHealth Online but had not conducted a visit, and nonregistered nonusers (NRNUs) completed neither step. RESULTS: Of 32 831 patients invited, 3219 (9.8%) responded and 766 met eligibility criteria and completed surveys: 390 (51%) RUs, 117 (15%) RNUs, and 259 (34%) NRNUs. RUs were least likely to have a primary care usual source of care (65.6% vs 78.6% for RNUs vs 80.0% for NRNUs; P < .001). Nearly half (46.8%) of RUs were unable to get an appointment with their doctor, and 34.8% indicated that their doctor's office was closed. Among the 3 groups, RUs were most likely to be employed (89.5% vs 88.9% vs 82.2%; P = .007), have post-high school education (94.4% vs 93.2% vs 86.5%; P = .003), and live in urban areas (81.0% vs 69.2% vs 76.0%; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth users reported that they relied on live video for enhanced access and were less connected to primary care than nonusers were. Telehealth may expand service access but risks further fragmentation of care and undermining of the primary care function absent better coordination and information sharing with usual sources of patients' care.

Long-acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) Provision by Family Physicians: Low But on the Rise.

Although the fraction of family physicians (FPs) providing Long Acting Reversible Contraceptive (LARC) services increased between 2014 and 2017, the most recent estimates show that less than a quarter of family physicians include provision of LARC in their practice. Increasing the number of FPs providing LARC will help increase patients' access to the most effective forms of birth control currently available.

Primary Care Research Priorities in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.

PURPOSE: To identify and prioritize the needs for new research evidence for primary health care (PHC) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) about organization, models of care, and financing of PHC. METHODS: Three-round expert panel consultation of LMIC PHC practitioners and academics sampled from global networks, via web-based surveys. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. Round 1 (pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organization and models of care and about financing. Round 2 invited panelists to rate the importance of each question, and in round 3 panelists provided priority ranking. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one practitioners and academics from 50 LMICs from all global regions participated and identified 744 knowledge gaps critical to improving PHC organization and 479 for financing. Four priority areas emerged: effective transition of primary and secondary services, horizontal integration within a multidisciplinary team and intersectoral referral, integration of private and public sectors, and ways to support successfully functioning PHC professionals. Financial evidence priorities were mechanisms to drive investment into PHC, redress inequities, increase service quality, and determine the minimum necessary budget for good PHC. CONCLUSIONS: This novel approach toward PHC needs in LMICs, informed by local academics and professionals, created an expansive and prioritized list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC organization and financing. It resulted in research questions, offering valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation. Its source and context specificity, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing research findings.

Factors Associated With Successful Research Departments A Qualitative Analysis of Family Medicine Research Bright Spots.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inadequate resources have led to family medicine research divisions at varying stages of development. The purpose of this analysis was to identify the factors that family medicine research "bright spot" departments perceive to be crucial to their success. METHODS: In this qualitative analysis, we identified bright spot dimensions and used a snowball sampling approach to identify medical school-based departments considered to be research bright spots. With 16 leaders from eight departments, we conducted semistructured interviews, covering historical events, leadership, partnerships, mentors, faculty selection, and training. We recorded and transcribed interviews and used a template-driven approach to data analysis, iteratively defining and modifying codes. At least two reviewers independently coded each interview, and coding discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: We identified the following themes: (1) Leadership was committed to research; (2) Research was built around teams of researchers; (3) Interdisciplinary teams facilitated by partnerships allowed the department to tackle complex problems; (4) The convergence of researchers and clinicians ensured that the research was relevant to family medicine; (5) Departments had cultures that engendered trust, leading to effective collaboration; (6) These teams were composed of intrinsically motivated individuals supported by mentorship and resources; (7) When deciding which questions to pursue, departments balanced the question's alignment with the individual researcher's passion, relevance to family medicine, and fundability. CONCLUSIONS: A commitment to research from an engaged chair, partnerships, integrating front-line clinicians, and supporting intrinsically motivated individuals were important for bright spots. Applying these concepts may be an important strategy for generating knowledge.

Over Half of Family Medicine Residency Program Directors Report Use of Telehealth Services.

Background: Little is known about the adoption of telehealth services among family medicine residency programs. Introduction: Using the 2015 Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance Program Directors Fall Survey section on telehealth, the authors investigated how residency programs used telehealth services during calendar year 2015. Materials and Methods: The authors used bivariate analyses to examine how family medicine residency program characteristics vary by telehealth usage. Services provided through telehealth (live interactive video or e-visits and store-and-forward services), clinical purpose of use, frequency of use, and number of patients served were characterized. Results: Surveys reached 461 Family Medicine Residency program directors, and 207 surveys were eligible for analysis (44.9% response rate). Fifty-seven percent of family medicine residency director survey respondents reported that their residents used telehealth services in calendar year 2015. Most of the telehealth users reported providing only e-visits or store-and-forward services (70.6%), with 78% of the 106 programs indicating that they served as the sending site for these services. Altogether 29% of users reported providing visits using live interactive video, with ∼63% indicating that they served as the originating site for these services (i.e., where the patient is located). Discussion: Increasing and enhancing the use of telehealth services in residency programs might help increase telehealth use in other settings. Conclusions: Although the majority of family medicine residency programs indicated that they used telehealth services, the reported use was limited, with those who did use telehealth services doing so infrequently.

30% of Recent Family Medicine Graduates Report Participation in Loan Repayment Programs.

Rising educational debt may discourage entry into primary care and practice in safety net settings, but little is known about participation in loan repayment programs that are thought to be part of the solution. A survey of 2052 recent family physician residency graduates found that 30% pursued loan repayment, only a portion of which is tied to service obligations, suggesting opportunities for research and areas for the attention of policymakers.

Rural Family Physicians Are Twice as Likely to Use Telehealth as Urban Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has the potential to reduce health inequities and improve health outcomes among rural populations through increased access to physicians, specialists, and reduced travel time for patients. INTRODUCTION: Although rural telehealth services have expanded in several specialized areas, little is known about the attitudes, beliefs, and uptake of telehealth use in rural American primary care. This study characterizes the differences between rural and urban family physicians (FPs), their perceptions of telehealth use, and barriers to further adoption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nationally representative randomly sampled survey of 5,000 FPs. RESULTS: Among the 31.3% of survey recipients who completed the survey, 83% practiced in urban areas and 17% in rural locations. Rural FPs were twice as likely to use telehealth as urban FPs (22% vs. 10%). Logistic regressions showed rural FPs had greater odds of reporting telehealth use to connect their patients to specialists and to care for their patients. Rural FPs were less likely to identify liability concerns as a barrier to using telehealth. DISCUSSION: Telemedicine allows rural patients to see specialists without leaving their communities and permits rural FPs to take advantage of specialist expertise, expand their scope of practice, and reduce the feeling of isolation experienced by rural physicians. CONCLUSION: Efforts to raise awareness of current payment policies for telehealth services, addressing the limitations of current reimbursement policies and state regulations, and creating new avenues for telehealth reimbursement and technological investments are critical to increasing primary care physician use of telehealth services.

Family Physicians Report Considerable Interest in, but Limited Use of, Telehealth Services.

PURPOSE: Little is known about the attitudes toward and adoption of telehealth services among family physicians (FPs), the largest primary care physician group. We conducted a national survey of FPs, randomly sampled from membership organization files, to investigate use of and barriers to using telehealth services. METHODS: Using bivariate analyses, we examined how telehealth usage affected FPs' identified barriers to using telehealth services. Logistic regressions show the factors associated both with using telehealth services and with barriers to using telehealth services. RESULTS: Surveys reached 4980 FPs; 1557 surveys were eligible for analysis (31% response rate). Among FPs, 15% reported using telehealth services during 2014. After controlling for the characteristics of the physicians and their practice, FPs who were based in a rural setting, worked in a practice owned by an integrated health system or other ownership structure, and provided hospital/urgent/emergency care were more likely to use telehealth. Physician and practice characteristics by telehealth use status, sex of the physician, practice location, years in practice, care provided, and practice ownership were associated with the barriers identified. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use was limited among FPs. Many of the barriers to using telehealth services cited by FPs are amenable to policy modification.