Search

Background: Adaptation to climate change (CC) is a priority for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in the Caribbean, as these countries and territories are particularly vulnerable to climate-related events. Primary health care (PHC) is an important contributor to CC adaptation. However, knowledge on how PHC is prepared for CC in Caribbean SIDS is very limited. The aim of this paper is to discuss health system adaptation to climate change, with a focus on PHC. Methods: We explored the perspectives of PHC professionals in Dominica on PHC adaptation to climate change. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in each of the seven health districts in Dominica, a Caribbean SIDS, between November 2021 and January 2022. The semi-structured interview guide was based on the Essential Public Health Functions: assessment, access to health care services, policy development and resource allocation. Data coding was organized accordingly. Results: Findings suggest that health care providers perceive climate change as contributing to an increase in NCDs and mental health problems. Climate-related events create barriers to care and exacerbate the chronic deficiencies within the health system, especially in the absence of high-level policy support. Healthcare providers need to take a holistic view of health and act accordingly in terms of disease prevention and health promotion, epidemiological surveillance, and ensuring the widest possible access to healthcare, with a particular focus on the environmental and social determinants of vulnerability. Conclusion: The primary health care system is a key stakeholder in the design and operationalization of adaptation and transformative resilience. The Essential Public Health Functions should integrate social and climate and other environmental determinants of health to guide primary care activities to protect the health of communities. This study highlights the need for improved research on the linkages between climate events and health outcomes, surveillance, and development of plans informed by contextual knowledge in the SIDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The integration of Primary Care (PC) into broader health systems has been a goal in jurisdictions around the world. Efforts to achieve integration at the meso-level have drawn particular attention, but there are few actionable recommendations for how to enact a 'pro-integration culture' amongst government and PC governance bodies. This paper describes pragmatic integration activity undertaken by meso-level participants in Alberta, Canada, and suggests ways this activity may be generalizable to other health systems. Methods: 11 semi-structured interviews with nine key informants from meso-level organizations were selected from a larger qualitative study examining healthcare policy development and implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Selected interviews focused on participants' experiences and efforts to 'do' integration as they responded to Alberta's first wave of the Omicron variant in September 2021. An interpretive descriptive approach was used to identify repeating cycles in the integration context, and pragmatic integration activities. Results: As Omicron arrived in Alberta, integration and relations between meso-level PC and central health system participants were tense, but efforts to improve the situation were successfully made. In this context of cycling relationships, staffing changes made in reaction to exogenous shocks and political pressures were clear influences on integration. However, participants also engaged in specific behaviours that advanced a pro-integration culture. They did so by: signaling value through staffing and resource choices; speaking and enacting personal and group commitments to collaboration; persevering; and practicing bi-directional communication through formal and informal channels. Conclusions: Achieving PC integration involves not just the reactive work of responding to exogenous factors, but also the proactive work of enacting cultural, relationship, and communication behaviors. These behaviors may support integration regardless of the shocks, staff turnover, and relational freeze-thaw cycles experienced by any health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The STarT MSK cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of risk-based stratified primary care versus usual care for patients with back, neck, shoulder, knee or multi-site pain. Trial quantitative results showed risk-based stratified care was not superior to usual care for patients' clinical outcomes, but the intervention led to some changes in GP clinical decision-making. This paper reports a linked qualitative study exploring how risk-based stratified care was perceived and used in the trial, from the perspectives of clinicians and patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 patients, and focus groups and interviews with 20 clinicians (GPs and physiotherapists) in the intervention arm of the trial. Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and the COM-B model. Main findings: Risk-based stratified care (subgrouping and matching treatments) was found to have 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to several clinicians and patients, in that it was well-integrated in practice, and supported clinical decision-making. However, for some GPs stratified care was less 'meaningful', as the risk-stratification tool did not fit with usual ways of consulting and added to already time-pressured consultations. GPs reported giving more patients written information/advice due to easier access to electronic information leaflets through the trial template and were motivated to refer patients to physiotherapy as they believed the trial resulted in faster physiotherapy access (although this was not the case). Patients and clinicians reported that risk-based stratified care influenced conversations in the consultation, prompting greater attention to psychosocial factors, and facilitating negotiation of treatment options. Physiotherapists saw benefits in receiving information about patients' risk subgroup on referral forms. Conclusion: These findings provide context for interpreting some of the trial outcomes, particularly in relation to changes in clinical decision-making when risk-based stratified care was used. Findings also indicate potential reasons for lack of GP engagement with risk-based stratified care. Positive outcomes were identified that were not captured in the quantitative data, specifically that risk-based stratified care positively influenced some GP-patient conversations and facilitated negotiation of treatment options. Trial registration: ISRCTN15366334 (26/04/2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]