The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe

Strategies for the Promotion of Primary Health Care Research in Portugal: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

There are several barriers discouraging clinicians from undertaking research, including insufficient funding, lack of time, organizational issues and lack of support. The strengthening of research capacity is perceived from three levels: characteristics of the researcher, the environment, and organizational issues. To date, Portugal is lacking studies on this subject. The aim of this study was to identify the best practices to promote research in Portuguese Primary Health Care.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with family doctors with broadly recognized research work and other stakeholders. We selected a sample by convenience and snowball sampling. From a total of 14 doctors invited by email, 12 responded positively, and we subsequently included two other stakeholders. We conducted the interviews in digital or face-to-face formats. Two team members handled the coding of interviews independently. We kept all recordings and transcripts confidential, only accessible to researchers.

RESULTS

We identified 16 strategies: 1) increasing institutional support; 2) creating support structures; 3) redefining the residency program; 4) investing in research training; 5) redefining curriculum evaluation; 6) establishing dedicated time for research; 7) increasing funding; 8) improving access to research data; 9) being a research driver; 10) establishing a research culture; 11) working in collaboration; 12) creating formally organized research groups; 13) creating autonomous research centers; 14) improving the definition of the research subjects and study designs; 15) reviewing procedures for ethics' committees; and 16) reviewing the current selection of articles for publication.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a greater proportion of interviewees identified the following as the most relevant strategies for research promotion: institutional support, including technical and scientific support from public institutions, private entities and academic centers; the reorganization of working hours with protected time for research; increased funding directed towards research and breaking isolation in research, promoting teamwork with clinicians within the same area or from different professional backgrounds.

Identifying key policy objectives for strong primary care: a cross-sectional study

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify key policy objectives by investigating the perception of important stakeholders and affected professionals concerning relevance and feasibility of a successful primary care (PC) reform.

BACKGROUND

Since 2013, the Austrian PC system has been undergoing a reform process to establish multiprofessional primary care units. The reforms have various defined objectives and lack clear priorities.

METHODS

After the definition and consensus-based selection of 12 policy objectives, a cross-sectional online survey on their relevance and feasibility was distributed via email and social media to PC and public health networks. The survey was conducted in the period from January to February 2020. Results were analyzed descriptively, and further, Pearson Chi-Square Test or Fisher's Exact Test was performed for group comparison regarding respondents' characteristics. Open-ended responses were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

FINDINGS

In total, 169 questionnaires were completed. A total of 46.3% of the responders had more than 20 years of professional experience (female: 60.5%). A mandatory internship in general practice, vocational training for general practice, and a modern remuneration system were the three top-rated policy objectives regarding relevance. A mandatory internship in general practice, specialization in general practice, and coding of services and diagnosis were assessed as the most feasible objectives. The group comparisons regarding working field, years of professional experience, age, and sex did not show any meaningful results in the evaluation of relevance and feasibility.

DISCUSSION

In the view of the study participants, easily obtainable objectives include adapting the duration and setting of internships for medical students, as well as mandatory vocational training for GP trainees. Further efforts are necessary to achieve complex objectives such as the adoption of a modern remuneration scheme and a comprehensive quality assurance program. Building capacity and creating team-oriented environments are also important aspects of a successful PC reform.

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in primary health care: Applying the PRECIS-2 tool on published protocols

RATIONALE

Pragmatic design may facilitate the generalizability of effectiveness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary health care (PHC).

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate whether published protocols in PHC were designed pragmatically and to explore whether specific trial characteristics may be related to a pragmatic design.

METHODS

Using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2), we assessed pragmatism for 123 published RCT protocols. For each domain, we calculated the mean score with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Interrater reliability was assessed by weighted κ-coefficient with 95% CI. We examined potential associations of published protocol characteristics with overall pragmatism by performing univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

We observed the highest score for primary analysis (4.66, 95% CI: 4.51, 4.82). The eligibility score was intermediate (3.16, 95% CI: 3.01, 3.32). Domains with scores towards the explanatory side included organization (2.50, 95% CI: 2.36, 2.63), flexibility of delivery (2.74, 95% CI: 2.60, 2.88) and flexibility of adherence (3.00, 95% CI: 2.83, 3.17). Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.80; p < 0.001). Higher sample sizes were correlated to a pragmatic design (odds ratio: 6.86, 95% CI: 1.64, 28.75; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Most RCT protocols were rated as intermediate in the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Future research may guide all stakeholders on how best to incorporate the level of pragmatism in the interpretation of the results so that the trials are more likely to be applicable in real-world settings.