Search

Abstract Background In Canada, there is widespread agreement about the need for integrated models of team-based care. However, there is less agreement on how to support the scale-up and spread of successful models, and there is limited empirical evidence to support this process in chronic disease management. We studied the supporting and mitigating factors required to successfully implement and scale-up an integrated model of team-based care in primary care. Methods We conducted a collective case study using multiple methods of data collection including interviews, document analysis, living documents, and a focus group. Our study explored a team-based model of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) known as Best Care COPD (BCC) that has been implemented in primary care settings across Southwestern Ontario. BCC is a quality improvement initiative that was developed to enhance the quality of care for patients with COPD. Participants included healthcare providers involved in the delivery of the BCC program. Results We identified several mechanisms influencing the scale-up and spread of BCC and categorized them as Foundational (e.g., evidence-based program, readiness to implement, peer-led implementation team), Transformative (adaptive process, empowerment and collaboration, embedded evaluation), and Enabling Mechanisms (provider training, administrative support, role clarity, patient outcomes). Based on these results, we developed a framework to inform the progressive implementation of integrated, team-based care for chronic disease management. Our framework builds off our empirical work and is framed by local contextual factors. Conclusions This study explores the implementation and spread of integrated team-based care in a primary care setting. Despite the study’s focus on COPD, we believe the findings can be applied in other chronic disease contexts. We provide a framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for chronic disease management.

Objectives Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics.Design Cross-sectional review.Data sources Medline database.Eligibility criteria Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries.Data extraction Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors’ likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs).Results We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p