Primary care practices’ perceived constraints to engaging in research: the importance of context and ‘Flow’

Challenges and strategies for conducting research in primary health care practice: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

Providing accessible and high-quality patient-centered healthcare remains a challenge in many countries, despite global efforts to strengthen primary health care (PHC). Research and knowledge management are integral to enhancing PHC, facilitating the implementation of successful strategies, and promoting the use of evidence-based practices. Practice-based research in primary care (PC-PBR) has emerged as a valuable approach, with its external validity to diverse PHC settings, making it an effective means of translating research findings into professional practice.

OBJECTIVE

To identify challenges and strategies for conducting practice-based research in primary health care services.

METHOD

An integrative literature review was conducted by searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases. The research question, guided by the PICo framework, directed the execution of study selection and data extraction. Data analysis followed the RAdAR method's three phases: pre-analysis, data analysis, and interpretation of results.

RESULTS

Out of 440 initially identified articles, 26 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, primarily the United States. The challenges and strategies for PC-PBR were categorized into six themes: research planning, infrastructure, engagement of healthcare professionals, knowledge translation, the relationship between universities and health services, and international collaboration. Notable challenges included research planning complexities, lack of infrastructure, difficulties in engaging healthcare professionals, and barriers to knowledge translation. Strategies underscore the importance of adapting research agendas to local contexts, providing research training, fostering stakeholder engagement, and establishing practice-based research networks.

CONCLUSION

The challenges encountered in PC-PBR are consistent across various contexts, highlighting the need for systematic, long-term actions involving health managers, decision-makers, academics, diverse healthcare professionals, and patients. This approach is essential to transform primary care, especially in low- and middle-income countries, into an innovative, comprehensive, patient-centered, and accessible healthcare system. By addressing these challenges and implementing the strategies, PC-PBR can play a pivotal role in bridging the gap between research and practice, ultimately improving patient care and population health.

Disparities in scientific research activity between doctors and nurses working in the Peruvian health care system: Analysis of a nationally representative sample

Aim

To evaluate disparities in the frequency of scientific activity between medical doctors and nurses in Peru.

Methods

We carried out a secondary data analysis of the National Health Services Users’ Satisfaction Survey (ENSUSALUD), 2016. This nationally representative survey evaluates doctors and nurses working in clinical settings. We defined scientific activity as i) having published an original article (journal indexed in Web of Science, Scopus or Medline); and ii) having authored an abstract in a national or international conference. We estimated crude and adjusted disparities prevalence ratios (aDPR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

Results

We included 2025 doctors and 2877 nurses in the analysis; 71% of doctors doctor were male, and 93% of nurses were female (p<0.001). Among doctors, 13.9% had published an article, and 8.4% presented an abstract at a conference in the last two years, while these proportions were 0.6% and 2.5% for nurses, respectively. The adjusted models showed that doctors, when compared to nurses, were approximately 27 times likely to have published a paper (aDPR = 27.86; 95% CI 10.46 to 74.19) and twice as likely to have authored a conference abstract (aDPR = 2.51; 95% CI 1.39 to 4.53).

Conclusions

There are important disparities in scientific activity between doctors and nurses working in clinical settings in Peru. Disparities are more significant for article publication than for authoring in conference abstracts. We suggest public policies that promote research dissemination between health professionals, with emphasis on nurses.

Improving access to organ donor registration in general practice: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Organ donor registration helps guide decision making for families. UK general practice provides the facility to register on the NHS Organ Donor Register, but only to new patients. An intervention was developed to present a registration opportunity to existing patients in this setting.

AIM

To assess the feasibility and acceptability of an organ donation intervention implemented in UK general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The intervention ran in a large practice in Luton in the UK, for 3 months in 2018. A single practice feasibility study was conducted using an embedded experimental mixed methods design.

METHOD

Staff were trained to ask patients in consultations if they wished to join the register, and leaflets and posters were displayed in the waiting room. Data on feasibility and acceptability were captured using SystmONE questionnaires, surveys, and focus groups.

RESULTS

Over 3 months, in 12.4% of face-to-face consultations, patients were asked if they would like to join the register (812 of 6569), and 244 (30.0%) of these patients joined the register. Common reasons staff did not ask patients were due to telephone consultations, lack of time, and it not being appropriate. Nurses and healthcare assistants performed prompted choice more than doctors (23.4%, 17.1%, and 1.6% respectively). Certain clinic types, such as phlebotomy or routine clinics, facilitated asking compared to those where patients presented with unknown or more serious issues.

CONCLUSION

The intervention was found to be feasible and acceptable by some staff and patients. Feasibility criteria were met; therefore, the intervention can progress to further testing.

Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study

INTRODUCTION

The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.

METHODS

We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.

RESULTS

The GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.

CONCLUSIONS

The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.

Providers’ Perceptions of Medical Interpreter Services and Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Patients

Patient’s ability to understand and effectively communicate health information facilitates disease prevention, self-management of illness, the adoption of healthy behaviors, and their ability to act on important public health information. However, patients who have limited English proficiency (LEP) are significantly disadvantaged. Previous studies have shown the benefit of medical interpreter services in bridging the health communication gap between patients and providers. This qualitative study, focusing on medical interpreter utilization within obstetrical and neonatal services, provides perspectives from multiple types of providers to further explore the role of medical interpreter services and specific barriers to the use of such services. Five separate focus groups were conducted with postpartum nurses, labor and delivery/triage nurses, obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) resident physicians, neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU) nurses, and faculty physicians, nurse practitioners, and midwives. The data show that barriers to the utilization of professional medical interpreters can be categorized by distinct but related institutional- and individual-level factors. Further interpretation of the barriers, however, suggests that providers’ use/non-use of interpreter services is merely one piece of a much “bigger picture” regarding difficulties and challenges in delivering care to a growing culturally diverse patient population, and that these cultural challenges, not just the availability of interpreter services, may affect providers’ ability to deliver effective and efficient care. It is argued that simply adding additional communication-based resources may not be sufficient to impact providers’ attitudes and behaviors or the overarching organizational culture regarding LEP patients.