The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. METHODS: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. RESULTS: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/55860.

Artificial intelligence for family medicine research in Canada: current state and future directions: Report of the CFPC AI Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the current landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) for family medicine (FM) research in Canada, identify how the College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) could support near-term positive progress in this field, and strengthen the community working in this field. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Members of a scientific planning committee provided guidance alongside members of a CFPC staff advisory committee, led by the CFPC-AMS TechForward Fellow and including CFPC, FM, and AI leaders. METHODS: This initiative included 2 projects. First, an environmental scan of published and gray literature on AI for FM produced between 2018 and 2022 was completed. Second, an invitational round table held in April 2022 brought together AI and FM experts and leaders to discuss priorities and to create a strategy for the future. REPORT: The environmental scan identified research related to 5 major domains of application in FM (preventive care and risk profiling, physician decision support, operational efficiencies, patient self-management, and population health). Although there had been little testing or evaluation of AI-based tools in practice settings, progress since previous reviews has been made in engaging stakeholders to identify key considerations about AI for FM and opportunities in the field. The round-table discussions further emphasized barriers to and facilitators of high-quality research; they also indicated that while there is immense potential for AI to benefit FM practice, the current research trajectory needs to change, and greater support is needed to achieve these expected benefits and to avoid harm. CONCLUSION: Ten candidate action items that the CFPC could adopt to support near-term positive progress in the field were identified, some of which an AI working group has begun pursuing. Candidate action items are roughly divided into avenues where the CFPC is well-suited to take a leadership role in tackling priority issues in AI for FM research and specific activities or initiatives the CFPC could complete. Strong FM leadership is needed to advance AI research that will contribute to positive transformation in FM.

What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers. METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers. CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.

"Family doctors are also people": a qualitative analysis of how family physicians managed competing personal and professional responsibilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Family physicians (FPs) fill an essential role in public health emergencies yet have frequently been neglected in pandemic response plans. This exclusion harms FPs in their clinical roles and has unintended consequences in the management of concurrent personal responsibilities, many of which were amplified by the pandemic. The objective of our study was to explore the experiences of FPs during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic to better understand how they managed their competing professional and personal priorities. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs from four Canadian regions between October 2020 and June 2021. Employing a maximum variation sampling approach, we recruited participants until we achieved saturation. Interviews explored FPs' personal and professional roles and responsibilities during the pandemic, the facilitators and barriers that they encountered, and any gender-related experiences. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed 68 FPs during the pandemic and identified four overarching themes in participants' discussion of their personal experiences: personal caregiving responsibilities, COVID-19 risk navigation to protect family members, personal health concerns, and available and desired personal supports for FPs to manage their competing responsibilities. While FPs expressed a variety of ways in which their personal experiences made their professional responsibilities more complicated, rarely did that affect the extent to which they participated in the pandemic response. CONCLUSIONS: For FPs to contribute fully to a pandemic response, they must be factored into pandemic plans. Failure to appreciate their unique role and circumstances often leaves FPs feeling unsupported in both their professional and personal lives. Comprehensive planning in anticipation of future pandemics must consider FPs' varied responsibilities, health concerns, and necessary precautions. Having adequate personal and practice supports in place will facilitate the essential role of FPs in responding to a pandemic crisis while continuing to support their patients' primary care needs.

Comparing Practice Intentions and Patterns of Family Physicians in Canada.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Canada, competency-based medical education prepares family medicine (FM) graduates to provide a broad scope of practice (SoP). We compared the practice intentions of FM residents at the end of training with actual practice patterns of early career family physicians (FPs) for SoP activities reflective of comprehensive family medicine. METHODS: We collected self-reported data from cross-sectional family medicine longitudinal surveys for exiting FM residents in 2015 and 2016 and from a separate cohort of FPs who were 3 years into practice in 2018 and 2019 from 15 programs. We measured outcomes from exiting FM residents intending to participate in SoP activities and FPs participating in 15 SoP domains of family medicine. RESULTS: A total of 1,409 exiting FM residents (58.2% response rate) and 523 early career FPs (21% response rate) responded to the surveys. A high correlation existed between the percentage of exiting residents who intended to participate in each SoP activity and the percentage of FPs who participated in those activities (r2=0.95). However, we found statistically significant declines in the percentage of FPs reporting involvement in the SoP activities compared to their reported practice intentions for 14 of the 15 domains. We saw the greatest declines in providing care in long-term care facilities, rural communities, emergency departments, intrapartum care, and care for Indigenous populations (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: While SoP patterns are highly correlated with practice intentions, early-career FPs are less likely to provide care as intended for all SoP activities. Further research is needed on the factors influencing practice patterns in specific areas to determine how FP graduates can be supported to provide comprehensive care.

The role of Canadian family physicians in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Context: In Canada, most medical care is delivered through front line, first contact primary care. As nations traverse the most significant health event in a century, it is important to understand how primary care has been engaged in the challenge. Objective: Assess the patterns of direct clinical patient care involvement of Canadian family physicians (FPs) in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic by province, age, remuneration model, and practice setting. Study Design: Online, self-report survey administered between April 7 and May 10, 2021. Survey invitations sent via email, with three reminders following initial contact. Setting or Dataset: The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) membership list was used to reach family physicians in diverse practice settings in all Canadian provinces and territories. Population studied: All active CFPC family physician (FP) members were included. Family medicine trainees and members with primary addresses outside Canada were excluded. Most FPs in Canada are CFPC members; 39,991 FPs received survey invitations; 3,409 replied, for an overall response rate of 9%. Outcome Measures: Percent of FPs engaged in the pandemic response, including performing COVID-19 testing, administering COVID-19 vaccines, and caring for COVID-19 patients. Results: Almost all FPs (99%) were in some way involved in the COVID-19 response. Most FPs (77%) were involved in direct clinical patient care (eg vaccination, testing, and/or caring for COVID-19 patients). In particular, 54% cared for COVID-19 patients and 15% vaccinated patients at their practice. Older FPs, FPs receiving remuneration only via fee-for-service, and FPs practicing in family medicine clinics only were less likely to be involved in the COVID-19 response. The findings also vary across jurisdiction. Conclusions: While most family physicians have been involved in the COVID-19 response, discrepancies exist across jurisdiction, ages, remuneration types, and practice models. These results suggest that there were obstacles to the full involvement of Canada's primary care system in the response to the pandemic. Evidence generated by this study points to factors that could enable a more responsive future primary health care system.

Pandemic reflection: Significant change is needed to tap into the power of primary care during times of crisis.

Context: As a front-line resource, primary care could function as an indispensable health system resource during pandemic crises. However, throughout COVID-19, Canada's primary care providers expressed concern over their ability to respond. This study investigates factors related to these concerns, suggesting key areas for future primary care system development. Objective: Assess specific areas where robust, well-supported primary care could contribute significantly to the health system's pandemic response, & factors that may have prevented it from doing so. Study Design: Online, self-report survey administered over 3 weeks, April-May, 2021. Survey invitations sent via email, with three reminders following initial contact. Setting or Dataset: The College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) membership list was used to reach family physicians in diverse practice settings in all Canadian provinces and territories. Population studied: All active CFPC family physician (FP) members were included. Most FPs in Canada are CFPC members; 39,991 FPs received survey invitations; 3,409 replied, for an overall response rate of 9%. Outcome Measures: Percent of FP engaged in systems level, pandemic response measures, including: 1) reporting COVID-19 cases to public health authorities, 2) identifying priority patients for vaccination, 3) participating in COVID-19 task forces, & 4) contributing to COVID-19 research/clinical studies. Results: Overall, one-third (34%) of FPs say that family practices in their region report COVID-19 cases to public health authorities. Most FPs (55%) say that their practices have not been asked to identify priority cases for COVID-19 vaccination. Less than 1-in-5 (19%) FPs have been involved in COVID-19 advisory/planning committees, task forces or groups. Very few FPs (6%) contribute to COVID-19 research/clinical studies. Half of FPs (50%) are highly concerned about the lack of clarity from government regarding FP response to the pandemic. These findings vary across jurisdictions and practice/remuneration models. Conclusions: Canada's primary care system has not been adequately engaged in important COVID-19 response measures, including monitoring viral spread in the population, pandemic planning, vaccination roll out, and therapeutic research. Practice models and remuneration arrangements are related to primary care's responsiveness to the COVID-19 pandemic,& should be considered in future primary care health system development.

Mental health impact of COVID-19 on family doctors in Canada: one year after.

Context: A year after the pandemic outbreak, primary care providers continue to face extreme psychological pressure. This study gauges the mental health and burnout levels of family physicians during the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Objective: Assess the levels of personal, professional and patient-related burnout of family physicians (FPs) in the response to the pandemic and explore demographic and work-related factors that may influence burnout levels. Study Design: Online, self-report survey administered between April 7 and May 10, 2021. Setting or Dataset: The College of Family Physicians of Canada's (CFPC) list of all active members was used to reach family physicians in diverse practice settings in all Canadian provinces and territories. Population studied: All active CFPC family physician (FP) members were included. Family medicine trainees and members with primary addresses outside Canada were excluded. Most FPs in Canada are CFPC members; 39,991 FPs received survey invitations; 3,409 replied, for an overall response rate of 9%. Outcome Measures: The study used the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) which measures the level of personal, work-related and patient-related burnout. As well, question asking about FP's overall sense of well being and personal wellness which were asked in a previous survey, a year prior, were incorporated to allow for longitudinal comparison. Results: 15% of FPs reported feeling burned out and thinking of, or have taken, a break from work, three times more than last year. More than one-fifth of FPs currently experience high or severe personal (22%) and work-related (21%) burnout, while 13% report the same levels of patient-related burnout. Female FPs report higher levels of personal burnout (26%, 17%) and work-related burnout (23%, 16%) than male FPs. Generations Y (30%) and X (25%) are experiencing higher levels of personal burnout than Baby Boomers (14%) and Traditionalists (2%). Conclusions: Roughly 1-in-4 FPs in Canada are currently experiencing high or severe personal and work-related burnout. Compared with the survey results a year prior, the numbers are climbing rapidly, reflecting the serious challenges FPs facing during the pandemic. This study was designed to contribute to a better understanding of the extent of the problem, contributing factors and to assist in considering approaches to build effective support systems to improve the mental health of FPs.

Future practice of comprehensive care: Practice intentions of exiting family medicine residents in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To describe exiting family medicine (FM) residents' reported practice intentions after completing a Triple C Competency-based Curriculum. DESIGN: The surveys were intended to capture residents' perceptions of FM, their perceptions of their competency-based training, and their intentions to practise FM. Entry (T1) and exit (T2) self-reported survey results were compared considering the influence of the curriculum change. Unmatched aggregate-level data were reviewed. The T1 survey was administered in the summer of 2012 and the T2 survey was administered in the spring of 2014. SETTING: Six Canadian FM residency programs across 4 provinces in Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec). PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 341 entering FM residents in 2012 responded to the T1 survey and 325 exiting FM residents completing their residency programs in spring 2014 responded to the T2 survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported data on FM residents' future practice intentions related to comprehensive care, providing care across clinical domains and settings, and providing comprehensive care individually or in teams. RESULTS: A total of 341 (71.3%) residents responded to the T1 survey and a total of 325 (71.4%) residents responded to the T2 survey. Of these, 78.7% responded that they intended to provide comprehensive FM in multiple clinical settings in their future practices, with 70.8% indicating a comprehensive care practice with a special interest and 36.6% intending to provide care in a focused practice. Overall, 92.9% reported that they intended to work in group practice environments. Ninety percent reported they intended to work in interprofessional team practices. CONCLUSION: While an upward trend toward the practice of comprehensive care was demonstrated, findings also showed an increased trend toward providing care in focused practices. Further research is needed to better determine how FM residents understand the definition of comprehensive FM and its practice models. The survey provides an opportunity to explore questions related to practice intentions that could be helpful in work force planning. As the first study to compare entry and exit data from learners who have been exposed to a Triple C competency-based approach, this survey provides important baseline data for use by many.

Examination outcomes and work locations of international medical graduate family medicine residents in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the postgraduate medical education (PGME) examination outcomes and work locations of international medical graduates (IMGs); and to identify differences between Canadians studying abroad (CSAs) and non-CSAs. DESIGN: Cohort study using data from the National IMG Database and Scott's Medical Database. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: All IMGs who had first entered a family medicine residency program between 2005 and 2009, with the exclusion of US graduates, visa trainees, and fellowship trainees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined 4 outcomes: passing the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 2 (MCCQE2), obtaining Certification in Family Medicine (CCFP), working in Canada within 2 years of completing PGME training, and working in Canada in 2015. RESULTS: Of the 876 residents in the study, 96.1% passed the MCCQE2, 78.1% obtained a specialty designation, 37.7% worked in Canada within 2 years after their PGME, and 91.2% worked in Canada in 2015. Older graduates were more likely (odds ratio [OR] = 3.45; 95% CI 1.52 to 7.69) than recent graduates were to pass the MCCQE2, and residents who participated in a skills assessment program before their PGME training were more likely (OR = 9.60; 95% CI 1.29 to 71.63) than those who had not were to pass the MCCQE2. Women were more likely (OR = 1.67; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.33) to obtain a specialty designation than men were. Recent graduates were more likely (OR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.79) than older graduates were to work in Canada following training. Residents who were eligible for a full licence were more likely (OR = 3.72; 95% CI 2.30 to 5.99) to work in Canada in 2015 than those who were not eligible for a full licence were. CONCLUSION: While most IMGs who entered the family medicine PGME program passed the MCCQE2, 1 in 5 did not obtain Certification. Most IMG residents remain in Canada. Canadians studying abroad and non-CSA IMGs share similar examination success rates and retention rates.

Realization of entry-to-practice milestones by Canadians who studied medicine abroad and other international medical graduates: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: International medical graduates must realize a series of milestones to obtain full licensure. We examined the realization of milestones by Canadian and non-Canadian graduates of Western or Caribbean medical schools, and Canadian and non-Canadian graduates from other medical schools. METHODS: Using the National IMG Database (data available for 2005-2011), we created 2 cohorts: 1) international medical graduates who had passed the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part I between 2005 and 2010 and 2) those who had first entered a family medicine postgraduate program between 2005 and 2009, or had first entered a specialty postgraduate program in 2005 or 2006. We examined 3 entry-to-practice milestones; obtaining a postgraduate position, passing the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part II and obtaining a specialty designation. RESULTS: Of the 6925 eligible graduates in cohort 1, 2144 (31.0%) had obtained a postgraduate position. Of the 1214 eligible graduates in cohort 2, 1126 (92.8%) had passed the Qualifying Examination Part II, and 889 (73.2%) had obtained a specialty designation. In multivariate analyses, Canadian graduates of Western or Caribbean medical schools (odds ratio [OR] 4.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.82-5.71) and Canadian graduates of other medical schools (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.31-1.70) were more likely to obtain a postgraduate position than non-Canadian graduates of other (not Western or Caribbean) medical schools. There was no difference among the groups in passing the Qualifying Examination Part II or obtaining a specialty designation. INTERPRETATION: Canadians who studied abroad were more likely than other international medical graduates to obtain a postgraduate position; there were no differences among the groups in realizing milestones once in a postgraduate program. These findings support policies that do not distinguish postgraduate applicants by citizenship or permanent residency status before medical school.

Retention Patterns of Canadians Who Studied Medicine Abroad and Other International Medical Graduates.

OBJECTIVES: Are Canadians who study abroad (CSAs) more likely to stay in Canada than other international medical graduates (IMGs)? We looked at retention patterns of CSAs and immigrant IMGs who completed post-graduate medical education (PGME) training in Canada to describe the proportion and predictors of those working in Canada and in rural communities in Canada in 2015. METHODS: We linked the National IMG Database to Scott's Medical Database to track the work locations of CSAs and immigrant IMGs in 2015. RESULTS: Of the 1,214 IMGs who entered PGME training in Canada between 2005 and 2011, most were working in Canada in 2015 (88.0%). Relatively few IMGs worked in rural communities (9.1%). There were no differences in work location patterns of CSAs and immigrant IMGs. CONCLUSION: Contrary to what CSA advocates suggest, CSAs have the same retention patterns as immigrant IMGs. PGME admission policies should treat all IMGs in the same manner, regardless of their citizenship or residency before medical school.

Credentialing and retention of visa trainees in post-graduate medical education programs in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Visa trainees are international medical graduates (IMG) who come to Canada to train in a post-graduate medical education (PGME) program under a student or employment visa and are expected to return to their country of origin after training. We examined the credentialing and retention of visa trainees who entered PGME programs between 2005 and 2011. METHODS: Using the Canadian Post-MD Education Registry's National IMG Database linked to Scott's Medical Database, we examined four outcomes: (1) passing the Medical Council of Canada Qualifying Examination Part 2 (MCCQE2), (2) obtaining a specialty designation (CCFP, FRCPC/SC), and (3) working in Canada after training and (4) in 2015. The National IMG Database is the most comprehensive source of information on IMG in Canada; data were provided by physician training and credentialing organizations. Scott's Medical Database provides data on physician locations in Canada. RESULTS: There were 233 visa trainees in the study; 39.5% passed the MCCQE2, 45.9% obtained a specialty designation, 24.0% worked in Canada after their training, and 53.6% worked in Canada in 2015. Family medicine trainees (OR = 8.33; 95% CI = 1.69-33.33) and residents (OR = 3.45; 95% CI = 1.96-6.25) were more likely than other specialist and fellow trainees, respectively, to pass the MCCQE2. Residents (OR = 7.69; 95% CI = 4.35-14.29) were more likely to obtain a specialty credential than fellows. Visa trainees eligible for a full license were more likely than those not eligible for a full license to work in Canada following training (OR = 3.41; 95% CI = 1.80-6.43) and in 2015 (OR = 3.34; 95% CI = 1.78-6.27). CONCLUSIONS: Visa training programs represent another route for IMG to qualify for and enter the physician workforce in Canada. The growth in the number of visa trainees and the high retention of these physicians warrant further consideration of the oversight and coordination of visa trainee programs in provincial and in pan-Canadian physician workforce planning.