Search

Objective: The objective was to analyse how the pandemic affected primary care access and comprehensiveness in chronic disease management by comparing primary care patterns before and during the early COVID-19 pandemic., Design: We conducted a quasi-experimental pre-post design cohort study and reported indicators for the 21 months before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic., Setting: We used electronic medical record data from primary care clinics enrolled in the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021., Population: The study population included patients (n=919 928) aged 18 years or older with at least one primary care contact from 12 March 2018 to 12 March 2020, in Canada., Outcome Measures: The study indicators included three indicators measuring access to primary care (encounters, blood pressure measurements and lab tests) and three for comprehensiveness (diagnoses, non-COVID-19 vaccines administered and referrals)., Results: 67.3% of the cohort was aged ≥40 years, 56.4% were female and 53.5% were from Ontario, Canada. Fewer patients received an encounter during the pandemic (91.5% to 81.5%), while the median (IQR) number of encounters remained the same (5 (2-1)) for those with access. Fewer patients received a blood pressure measurement (47.9% to 31.8%), and patients received fewer measurements during the pandemic (2 (1-4) to 1 (0-2))., Conclusions: Encounters with primary care remained consistent during the pandemic, but in-person care, such as lab tests and blood pressure measurements, decreased. In-person care indicators followed temporally to national COVID-19 case counts during the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) synthesize high-quality information to support evidence-based clinical practice. In primary care, numerous CPGs must be integrated to address the needs of patients with multiple risks and conditions. The BETTER program aims to improve prevention and screening for cancer and chronic disease in primary care by synthesizing CPGs into integrated, actionable recommendations. We describe the process used to harmonize high-quality cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) CPGs to update the BETTER program., Methods: A review of CPG databases, repositories, and grey literature was conducted to identify international and Canadian (national and provincial) CPGs for CCDPS in adults 40-69 years of age across 19 topic areas: cancers, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, hepatitis C, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, and associated risk factors (i.e., diet, physical activity, alcohol, cannabis, drug, tobacco, and vaping/e-cigarette use). CPGs published in English between 2016 and 2021, applicable to adults, and containing CCDPS recommendations were included. Guideline quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and a three-step process involving patients, health policy, content experts, primary care providers, and researchers was used to identify and synthesize recommendations., Results: We identified 51 international and Canadian CPGs and 22 guidelines developed by provincial organizations that provided relevant CCDPS recommendations. Clinical recommendations were extracted and reviewed for inclusion using the following criteria: 1) pertinence to primary prevention and screening, 2) relevance to adults ages 40-69, and 3) applicability to diverse primary care settings. Recommendations were synthesized and integrated into the BETTER toolkit alongside resources to support shared decision-making and care paths for the BETTER program., Conclusions: Comprehensive care requires the ability to address a person's overall health. An approach to identify high-quality clinical guidance to comprehensively address CCDPS is described. The process used to synthesize and harmonize implementable clinical recommendations may be useful to others wanting to integrate evidence across broad content areas to provide comprehensive care. The BETTER toolkit provides resources that clearly and succinctly present a breadth of clinical evidence that providers can use to assist with implementing CCDPS guidance in primary care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Over the last 20 years, the Canadian province of Ontario implemented several new models of primary care focusing on changes to physician remuneration, clinics led by nurse practitioners and the introduction of interprofessional primary care teams. Health outcome and cost evaluations of these models thus far have been mostly cross-sectional and in some cases results from these studies were conflicting. The aim of this population-based study is to investigate short, medium and long-term effectiveness of these reforms over the past 15-20 years., Methods and Analysis: This is the protocol for a retrospective cohort study including fee-for-service (FFS) and community health centre cohorts (control cohorts) or patients who switched from either being unattached or from FFS to a new practice model (eg, capitation, enhanced FFS, team, nurse practitioner-led) from 1997 to 2020. The primary outcome is total healthcare costs and secondary outcomes are primary care costs, other (non-primary care) health costs, hospitalisations, length of stay, emergency department visits, accessibility and mortality. A combination of hard and propensity matching will be used where relevant. Outcomes will be adjusted for demographic and health factors and measured annually. Interrupted time series models will be used where data permits and difference-in-differences methods will be used otherwise., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval has been received from Queens University and Memorial University. The dissemination plan includes conference presentations, papers, brief evidence summaries targeted at select audiences and knowledge brokering sessions with key stakeholders., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A Delphi (consensus) process was used to obtain national agreement on competencies for registered nurses (RNs) in primary care. A draft of competencies was developed by key informants. Following this, nurses with primary care experience/expertise completed a Delphi survey to rate the importance of competency statements on a six-point Likert scale. Statements not reaching consensus (agreement ≥80%) were modified and included in a second (final) round. The first survey was completed by 63% ( n = 86/137) of participants and 84% ( n = 72/86) of these participants completed the second survey. Most statements ( n = 45) achieved agreement after the first survey; one statement was dropped and two were combined following the second round. The final list of competencies consists of 47 statements across six domains (professionalism; clinical practice; communication; collaboration and partnership; quality assurance, evaluation, and research; leadership). National competencies will help strengthen the RN workforce within primary care, improve team functioning, and support role integration/optimization.

Introduction: Case management (CM) in a primary care setting is a promising approach to integrating and improving healthcare services and outcomes for patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs who frequently use healthcare services. Despite evidence supporting CM and interest in implementing it in Canada, little is known about how to do this. This research aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a CM intervention in different primary care contexts (objective 1) and to explain the influence of the clinical context on the degree of implementation (objective 2) and on the outcomes of the intervention (objective 3)., Methods and Analysis: A multiple-case embedded mixed-methods study will be conducted on CM implemented in ten primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Each clinic will represent a subunit of analysis, detailed through a case history. Cases will be compared and contrasted using multiple analytical approaches. Qualitative data (objectives 1 and 2) from individual semistructured interviews (n=130), focus group discussions (n=20) and participant observation of each clinic (36 hours) will be compared and integrated with quantitative (objective 3) clinical data on services use (n=300) and patient questionnaires (n=300). An evaluation of intervention fidelity will be integrated into the data analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: This project received approval from the CIUSSS de l'Estrie - CHUS Research Ethic Board (project number MP-31-2019-2830). Results will provide the opportunity to refine the CM intervention and to facilitate effective evaluation, replication and scale-up. This research provides knowledge on how to resp ond to the needs of individuals with chronic conditions and complex care needs in a cost-effective way that improves patient-reported outcomes and healthcare use, while ensuring care team well-being. Dissemination of results is planned and executed based on the needs of various stakeholders involved in the research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Case management (CM) is a promising intervention for frequent users of health care services. Our research question was how and under what circumstances does CM in primary care work to improve outcomes among frequent users with chronic conditions?, Methods: We conducted a realist synthesis, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) for articles meeting the following criteria: (1) population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2) intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3) primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Academic and gray literature were evaluated for relevance and robustness. Independent reviewers extracted data to identify context, mechanism, and outcome (CMO) configurations. Analysis of CMO configurations allowed for the modification of an initial program theory toward a refined program theory., Results: Of the 9,295 records retrieved, 21 peer-reviewed articles and an additional 89 documents were retained. We evaluated 19 CM interventions and identified 11 CMO configurations. The development of a trusting relationship fostering patient and clinician engagement in the CM intervention was recurrent in many CMO configurations., Conclusion: Our refined program theory proposes that in the context of easy access to an experienced and trusted case manager who provides comprehensive care while maintaining positive interactions with patients, the development of this relationship fosters the engagement of both individuals and yields positive outcomes when the following mechanisms are triggered: patients and clinicians feel supported, respected, accepted, engaged, and committed; and patients feel less anxious, more secure, and empowered to self-manage., (© 2020 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Background: Canada has been referred to as the land of 'perpetual pilot projects'. Effective innovations often remain small in scale, with limited impact on health systems. Several innovations have been developed in Canada to tackle important challenges such as poor access to services and excessive wait times - one of the most promising innovations that has been piloted is eConsult, which is a model of asynchronous communication that allows primary care providers to electronically consult with specialists regarding their patients' medical issues. eConsult pilot projects have been shown to reduce wait times for specialist care, prevent unnecessary referrals and reduce health system costs. eConsult has been spread throughout Ontario as well as to certain regions in Manitoba, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our aim is to understand and support the scale-up process of eConsult in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Our specific objectives are to (1) describe the main components of eConsult relevant to the scale-up process in each province; (2) understand the eConsult scale-up process in each province and compare across provinces; (3) identify policy issues and strategies to scaling up eConsult in each province; and (4) foster cross-level and cross-jurisdictional learning on scaling up eConsult., Methods: We will conduct a qualitative multiple case study to investigate the scaling up of eConsult in four Canadian provinces using a grey literature review, key stakeholder interviews (10 interviews/province), non-participant observations, focus groups and deliberative dialogues. We will identify the main components of eConsult to be scaled up using logic models (obj. 1). Scaling up processes will be analysed using strategies adapted from process research (obj. 2). Policy issues and strategies to scale-up eConsult will be analysed thematically (obj. 3). Finally, a symposium will foster pan-Canadian learning on the process of scaling up eConsult (obj. 4)., Discussion: This study will likely increase learning and support evidence-based policy-making across participating provinces and may improve the capacity for a pan-Canadian scale-up of eConsult, including in provinces where eConsult has not yet been implemented. This work is essential to inform how similar innovations can reshape our health systems in the evolving information age.

Introduction: Significant evidence in the literature supports case management (CM) as an effective intervention to improve care for patients with complex healthcare needs. However, there is still little evidence about the facilitators and barriers to CM implementation in primary care setting. The three specific objectives of this study are to: (1) identify the facilitators and barriers of CM implementation in primary care clinics across Canada; (2) explain and understand the relationships between the actors, contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes of the CM intervention; (3) identify the next steps towards CM spread in primary care across Canada., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a multiple-case embedded mixed methods study. CM will be implemented in 10 primary care clinics in five Canadian provinces. Three different units of analysis will be embedded to obtain an in-depth understanding of each case: the healthcare system (macro level), the CM intervention in the clinics (meso level) and the individual/patient (micro level). For each objective, the following strategy will be performed: (1) an implementation analysis, (2) a realist evaluation and (3) consensus building among stakeholders using the Technique for Research of Information by Animation of a Group of Experts method., Ethics and Dissemination: This study, which received ethics approval, will provide innovative knowledge about facilitators and barriers to implementation of CM in different primary care jurisdictions and will explain how and why different mechanisms operate in different contexts to generate different outcomes among frequent users. Consensual and prioritised statements about next steps for spread of CM in primary care from the perspectives of all stakeholders will be provided. Our results will offer context-sensitive explanations that can better inform local practices and policies and contribute to improve the health of patients with complex healthcare needs who frequently use healthcare services. Ultimately, this will increase the performance of healthcare systems and specifically mitigate ineffective use and costs., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The patient medical home (PMH) model aims to improve patient satisfaction and health outcomes in Canada, but since its introduction in 2009, there has been no evaluation of the extent to which primary care conforms with PMH attributes. Our objective was to compare current primary care across Canada with the 10 goals of the PMH model., Methods: A cross-sectional survey of primary care organization and delivery was conducted in Canadian provinces to evaluate the PMH-based attributes of primary care practices. Family physician and patient responses were mapped to the 10 goals of the PMH model. We used regression models to describe the provinces' success in meeting the goals, taking specific practice characteristics into account. We created a PMH composite score by weighting each goal equally for each practice and aggregating these by province. The PMH score is the sum of the values for each goal, which were scored from 0 to 1; a score of 10 indicates that all 10 goals of the PMH model were achieved., Results: Seven hundred seventy-two primary care practices and 7,172 patients participated in the survey. The average national PMH score was 5.36 (range 4.75-6.23) of 10. Ontario was the only province to score significantly higher than Canada as a whole, whereas Québec, Newfoundland/Labrador, and New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island scored below the national average. There was little variation, however, among provinces in achieving the 10 PMH goals., Conclusions: Provincial PMH scores indicate considerable room for improvement if the PMH goals are to be fully implemented in Canada., (© 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objective: To examine the use of computers in primary care practices., Design: The international Quality and Cost of Primary Care study was conducted in Canada in 2013 and 2014 using a descriptive cross-sectional survey method to collect data from practices across Canada. Participating practices filled out several surveys, one of them being the Family Physician Survey, from which this study collected its data., Setting: All 10 Canadian provinces., Participants: A total of 788 family physicians., Main Outcome Measures: A computer use scale measured the extent to which family physicians integrated computers into their practices, with higher scores indicating a greater integration of computer use in practice. Analyses included t tests and 2 tests comparing new and traditional models of primary care on measures of computer use and electronic health record (EHR) use, as well as descriptive statistics., Results: Nearly all (97.5%) physicians reported using a computer in their practices, with moderately high computer use scale scores (mean [SD] score of 5.97 [2.96] out of 9), and many (65.7%) reported using EHRs. Physicians with practices operating under new models of primary care reported incorporating computers into their practices to a greater extent (mean [SD] score of 6.55 [2.64]) than physicians operating under traditional models did (mean [SD] score of 5.33 [3.15]; t 726.60 = 5.84; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI 0.808 to 1.627) and were more likely to report using EHRs (73.8% vs 56.7%; [Formula: see text]; P < .001; odds ratio = 2.15). Overall, there was a statistically significant variability in computer use across provinces., Conclusion: Most family physicians in Canada have incorporated computers into their practices for administrative and scholarly activities; however, EHRs have not been adopted consistently across the country. Physicians with practices operating under the new, more collaborative models of primary care use computers more comprehensively and are more likely to use EHRs than those in practices operating under traditional models of primary care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

The objective of this study was to define the optimal algorithm to identify patients with dyslipidemia using electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs of patients attending primary care clinics in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada during 2009-2010, were studied to determine the best algorithm for identification of dyslipidemia. Six algorithms containing three components, dyslipidemia ICD coding, lipid lowering medication use, and abnormal laboratory lipid levels, were tested against a gold standard, defined as the existence of any of the three criteria. Linear discriminate analysis, and bootstrapping were performed following sensitivity/specificity testing and receiver's operating curve analysis. Two validating datasets, NL records of 2011-2014, and Canada-wide records of 2010-2012, were used to replicate the results. Relative to the gold standard, combining laboratory data together with lipid lowering medication consumption yielded the highest sensitivity (99.6%), NPV (98.1%), Kappa agreement (0.98), and area under the curve (AUC, 0.998). The linear discriminant analysis for this combination resulted in an error rate of 0.15 and an Eigenvalue of 1.99, and the bootstrapping led to AUC: 0.998, 95% confidence interval: 0.997-0.999, Kappa: 0.99. This algorithm in the first validating dataset yielded a sensitivity of 97%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) = 83%, Kappa = 0.88, and AUC = 0.98. These figures for the second validating data set were 98%, 93%, 0.95, and 0.99, respectively. Combining laboratory data with lipid lowering medication consumption within the EMR is the best algorithm for detecting dyslipidemia. These results can generate standardized information systems for dyslipidemia and other chronic disease investigations using EMRs.

Background: BETTER (Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) is a patient-based intervention to improve chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and associated lifestyle factors in patients aged 40 to 65. The key component of BETTER is a prevention practitioner (PP), a health care professional with specialized skills in CDPS who meets with patients to develop a personalized prevention prescription, using the BETTER toolkit and Brief Action Planning. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the BETTER 2 program among clinicians, patients, and stakeholders in three (urban, rural, and remote) primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada., Methods: We collected and analyzed responses from 20 key informant interviews and 5 focus groups, as well as memos and field notes. Data were organized using Nvivo 10 software and coded using constant comparison methods. We then employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to focus our analysis on the domains most relevant for program implementation., Results: The following key elements, within the five CFIR domains, were identified as impacting the implementation of BETTER 2: (1) intervention characteristics-complexity and cost of the intervention; (2) outer setting-perception of fit including lack of remuneration, lack of resources, and duplication of services, as well as patients' needs as perceived by physicians and patients; (3) characteristics of prevention practitioners-interest in prevention and ability to support and motivate patients; (4) inner setting-the availability of a local champion and working in a team versus working as a team; and (5) process-planning and engaging, collaboration, and teamwork., Conclusions: The implementation of a novel CDPS program into new primary care settings is a complex, multi-level process. This study identified key elements that hindered or facilitated the implementation of the BETTER approach in three primary care settings in Newfoundland and Labrador. Employing the CFIR as an overarching typology allows for comparisons with other contexts and settings, and may be useful for practices, researchers, and policy-makers interested in the implementation of CDPS programs.

Objective: To examine access to primary care in new and traditional models using 2 dimensions of the concept of patient-centred access., Design: An international survey examining the quality and costs of primary health care (the QUALICOPC study) was conducted in 2013 in Canada. This study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional survey method using data from practices across Canada. Each participating practice filled out the Family Physician Survey and the Practice Survey, and patients in each participating practice were asked to complete the Patient Experiences Survey., Setting: All 10 Canadian provinces., Participants: A total of 759 practices and 7172 patients., Main Outcome Measures: Independent t tests were conducted to examine differences between new and traditional models of care in terms of availability and accommodation, and affordability of care., Results: Of the 759 practices, 407 were identified as having new models of care and 352 were identified as traditional. New models of care were distinct with respect to payment structure, opening hours, and having an interdisciplinary work force. Most participating practices were from large cities or suburban areas. There were few differences between new and traditional models of care regarding accessibility and accommodation in primary care. Patients under new models of care reported easier access to other physicians in the same practice, while patients from traditional models reported seeing their regular family physicians more frequently. There was no difference between the new and traditional models of care with regard to affordability of primary care. Patients attending clinics with new models of care reported that their physicians were more involved with them as a whole person than patients attending clinics based on traditional models did., Conclusion: Primary care access issues do not differ strongly between traditional and new models of care; however, patients in the new models of care believed that their physicians were more involved with them as people.

Background: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada., Methods: A clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing., Results: The tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making., Conclusion: The integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting., Trial Registration: The registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460 .

Background: Performance reporting in primary health care in Canada is challenging because of the dearth of concise and synthesized information. The paucity of information occurs, in part, because the majority of primary health care in Canada is delivered through a multitude of privately owned small businesses with no mechanism or incentives to provide information about their performance. The purpose of this paper is to report the methods used to recruit family physicians and their patients across 10 provinces to provide self-reported information about primary care and how this information could be used in recruitment and data collection for future large scale pan-Canadian and other cross-country studies., Methods: Canada participated in an international large scale study-the QUALICO-PC (Quality and Costs of Primary Care) study. A set of four surveys, designed to collect in-depth information regarding primary care activities was collected from: practices, providers, and patients (experiences and values). Invitations (telephone, electronic or mailed) were sent to family physicians. Eligible participants were sent a package of surveys. Provincial teams kept records on the number of: invitation emails/letters sent, physicians who registered, practices that were sent surveys, and practices returning completed surveys. Response and cooperation rates were calculated., Results: Invitations to participate were sent to approximately 23,000 family physicians across Canada. A total of 792 physicians and 8,332 patients from 772 primary care practices completed the surveys, including 1,160 participants completing a Patient Values survey and 7,172 participants completing a Patient Experience survey. Overall, the response rate was very low ranging from 2% (British Columbia) to 21% (Nova Scotia). However, the participation rate was high, ranging from 72% (Ontario) to 100% (New Brunswick/Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland & Labrador)., Conclusions: The difficulties obtaining acceptable response rates by family physicians for survey participation is a universal challenge. This response rate for the QUALICO-PC arm in Canada was similar to rates found in other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. Even though most family physicians operate as self-employed small businesses, they could be supported to routinely submit data through a collective effort and provincial mandate. The groundwork in setting up pan-Canadian collaboration in primary care has been established through this study.

Background: The objectives of this paper are to describe the planned implementation and evaluation of the Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER 2) program which originated from the BETTER trial. The pragmatic trial, informed by the Chronic Care Model, demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) involving the use of a new role, the prevention practitioner. The desired goals of the program are improved clinical outcomes, reduction in the burden of chronic disease, and improved sustainability of the health-care system through improved CDPS in primary care., Methods/design: The BETTER 2 program aims to expand the implementation of the intervention used in the original BETTER trial into communities across Canada (Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories and Nova Scotia). This proactive approach provides at-risk patients with an intervention from the prevention practitioner, a health-care professional. Using the BETTER toolkit, the prevention practitioner determines which CDPS actions the patient is eligible to receive, and through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing, develops a unique and individualized 'prevention prescription' with the patient. This intervention is 1) personalized; 2) addressing multiple conditions; 3) integrated through linkages to local, regional, or national resources; and 4) longitudinal by assessing patients over time. The BETTER 2 program brings together primary care providers, policy/decision makers and researchers to work towards improving CDPS in primary care. The target patient population is adults aged 40-65. The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintain (RE-AIM) framework will inform the evaluation of the program through qualitative and quantitative methods. A composite index will be used to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of the prevention practitioner intervention. The CDPS actions comprising the composite index include the following: process measures, referral/treatment measures, and target/change outcome measures related to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and associated lifestyle factors., Discussion: The BETTER 2 program is a collaborative approach grounded in practice and built from existing work (i.e., integration not creation). The program evaluation is designed to provide an understanding of issues impacting the implementation of an effective approach for CDPS within primary care that may be adapted to become sustainable in the non-research setting.

Introduction: Growing evidence supports patient engagement (PE) in health implementation research to improve the quality, relevance and uptake of research. However, more guidance is needed to plan and operationalize PE before and throughout the research process. The aim of the study was to develop a logic model illustrating the causal links between context, resources, activities, outcomes and impact of PE in an implementation research programme. Methods: The Patient Engagement in Health Implementation Research Logic Model (hereafter the Logic Model) was developed using a descriptive qualitative design with a participatory approach, in the context of the PriCARE programme. This programme aims to implement and evaluate case management for individuals who frequently use healthcare services in primary care clinics across five Canadian provinces. Participant observation of team meetings was performed by all team members involved in the programme and in‐depth interviews were conducted by two external research assistants with team members (n = 22). A deductive thematic analysis using components of logic models as coding categories was conducted. Data were pooled in the first version of the Logic Model, which was refined in research team meetings with patient partners. The final version was validated by all team members. Results: The Logic Model highlights the importance of integrating PE into the project before its commencement, with appropriate support in terms of funding and time allocation. The governance structure and leadership of both principal investigators and patient partners have significant effects on PE activities and outcomes. As an empirical and standardized illustration that facilitates a shared understanding, the Logic Model provides guidance for maximizing the impact of patient partnership in various contexts for research, patients, providers and health care. Conclusion: The Logic Model will help academic researchers, decision makers and patient partners plan, operationalize, and assess PE in implementation research for optimal outcomes. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme contributed to developing the research objectives and designing, developing and validating data collection tools, producing data, developing and validating the Logic Model and reviewing the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer and chronic diseases are a major cost to the healthcare system and multidisciplinary models with access to prevention and screening resources have demonstrated improvements in chronic disease management and prevention. Research demonstrated that a trained Prevention Practitioner (PP) in multidisciplinary team settings can improve achievement of patient level prevention and screening actions seven months after the intervention. Methods: We tested the effectiveness of the PP intervention in a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40–65 were randomized at the physician level to an intervention group or to a wait-list control group. The intervention consisted of a patient visit with a PP. The PP received training in prevention and screening and use of the BETTER WISE tool kit. The effectiveness of the intervention was assessed using a composite outcome of the proportion of the eligible prevention and screening actions achieved between intervention and control groups at 12-months. Results: Fifty-nine physicians were recruited in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the 1,005 patients enrolled, 733 (72.9%) completed the 12-month analysis. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred during the study time frame at which time nonessential prevention and screening services were not available and in-person visits with the PP were not allowed. Many patients and sites did not receive the intervention as planned. The mean composite score was not significantly higher in patients receiving the PP intervention as compared to the control group. To understand the impact of COVID on the project, we also considered a subset of patients who had received the intervention and who attended the 12-month follow-up visit before COVID-19. This assessment demonstrated the effectiveness of the BETTER visits, similar to the findings in previous BETTER studies. Conclusions: We did not observe an improvement in cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) outcomes at 12 months after a BETTER WISE prevention visit: due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the study was not implemented as planned. Though benefits were described in those who received the intervention before COVID-19, the sample size was too small to make conclusions. This study may be a harbinger of a substantial decrease and delay in CCDPS activities under COVID restrictions. Trial registration: ISRCTN21333761. Registered on 19/12/2016. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21333761. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have highlighted common challenges and barriers to patient engagement in research, but most were based on patient partners' or academic researchers' experiences. A better understanding of how both groups differentially experience their partnership could help identify strategies to improve collaboration in patient engagement research. Aim: This study aimed to describe and compare patient partners' and academic researchers' experiences in patient engagement research. Methods: Based on a participatory approach, a descriptive qualitative study was conducted with patient partners and academic researchers who are involved in the PriCARE research programme in primary health care to examine their experience of patient engagement. Individual semi‐structured interviews with patient partners (n = 7) and academic researchers (n = 15) were conducted. Academic researchers' interview verbatims, deidentified patient partners' summaries of their interviews and summaries of meetings with patient partners were analysed using inductive thematic analysis in collaboration with patient partners. Results: Patient partners and academic researchers' experiences with patient engagement are captured within four themes: (1) evolving relationships; (2) creating an environment that fosters patient engagement; (3) striking a balance; and (4) impact and value of patient engagement. Evolving relationships refers to how partnerships grew and improved over time with an acceptance of tensions and willingness to move beyond them, two‐way communication and leadership of key team members. Creating an environment that fosters patient engagement requires appropriate structural support, such as clear descriptions of patient partner roles; adequate training for all team members; institutional guidance on patient engagement; regular and appropriate translation services; and financial assistance. For patient partners and academic researchers, striking a balance referred to the challenge of reconciling patient partners' interests and established research practices. Finally, both groups recognized the value and positive impact of patient engagement in the programme in terms of improving the relevance of research and the applicability of results. While patient partners and academic researchers identified similar challenges and strategies, their experiences of patient engagement differed according to their own backgrounds, motives and expectations. Conclusion: Both patient partners and academic researchers highlighted the importance of finding a balance between providing structure or guidelines for patient engagement, while allowing for flexibility along the way. Patient or Public Contribution: Patient partners from the PriCARE research programme were involved in the following aspects of the current study: (1) development of the research objectives; (2) planning of the research design; (3) development and validation of data collection tools (i.e., interview guides); (4) production of data (i.e., acted as interviewees); (5) validation of data analysis tools (code book); (6) analysis of qualitative data; and (7) drafting of the manuscript and contributing to other knowledge translation activities, such as conference presentations and the creation of a short animated video. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Canadians' health care-seeking behaviour for physical and mental health issues was examined using the international Quality and Cost of Primary Care (QUALICOPC) survey that was conducted in 2013 in Canada. Method: This study used the cross-sectional Patient Experiences Survey collected from 7260 patients in 759 practices across 10 Canadian provinces as part of the QUALICOPC study. A Responsive Care Scale (RCS) was constructed to reflect the degree of health care-seeking behaviour across 11 health conditions. Using several patient characteristics as independent variables, four multiple regression analyses were conducted. Results: Patients' self-reports indicated that there were gender differences in health care-seeking behaviour, with women reporting they visited their primary care provider to a greater extent than did men for both physical and mental health concerns. Overall, patients were less likely to seek care for mental health concerns in comparison to physical health concerns. For both women and men, the results of the regressions indicated that age, illness prevention, trust in physicians and chronic conditions were important factors when explaining health care-seeking behaviours for mental health concerns. Conclusion: This study confirms the gender differences in health care-seeking behaviour advances previous research by exploring in detail the variables predicting differences in health care-seeking behaviour for men and women. The variables were better predictors of health care-seeking behaviour in response to mental health concerns than physical health concerns, likely reflecting greater variation among those seeking mental health care. This study has implications for those working to improve barriers to health care access by identifying those more likely to engage in health care-seeking behaviours and the variables predicting health care-seeking. Consequently, those who are not accessing primary care can be targeted and policies can be developed and put in place to promote their health care-seeking behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]