Search

Community and public participation and involvement is an underpinning principle of primary health care, an essential component of a social justice-orientated approach to health care and a vehicle to improving health outcomes for patients, public and communities. However, influenced by history and context, there are intrinsic issues surrounding power imbalance and other barriers to partnerships between communities, public, policy makers and researchers. It is important to acknowledge these issues, and through doing so share experiences and learn from those working within very different settings.In South Africa, community participation is seen as a route to decolonisation. It is also integral to the core functions of South African Higher Education Institutes, alongside teaching and research. In the UK, there has also been a history of participation and involvement as part of a social rights movement, but notably public involvement has become embedded in publicly funded health research as a policy imperative.In this paper, we draw on our respective programmes of work in public and community participation and involvement. These include a South African community engagement project to reduce teenage pregnancy and HIV infection working through a partnership between teachers, students and university academics, and a national evaluation in England of public involvement in applied health research. We begin by highlighting the lack of clarity and terms used interchangeably to describe participation, engagement and involvement. Frameworks for partnership working with relevance to South Africa and the UK are then analysed, suggesting key themes of relationships, working together, and evaluation and monitoring. The South African project and examples of public involvement in English primary and community care research are examined through these themes. We conclude the paper by mapping out common enablers and barriers to partnership working within these very different contexts.

AimThe objective of this paper is to present a qualitative study of introducing substance misuse screening using the Screening Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model, in primary care in Abu Dhabi., Background: Substance misuse in the UAE is an increasing problem. However religious beliefs and fear of legal consequences have prevented this topic from being openly discussed, risk levels identified through screening and treatment options offered., Methods: A controlled trial was undertaken which included a qualitative process study which is reported here. Qualitative interviews with primary care physicians from two intervention clinics were undertaken to explore their views, experiences and attitudes towards substance misuse management in their clinic. Physicians were trained on SBIRT and on the research project process and documentation. At completion of the project, 10 months after the training, physicians (n=17) were invited to participate in an interview to explore their experiences of training and implementation of SBIRT. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Inductive thematic coding was applied.FindingsIn total, 11 physicians were interviewed and three main themes emerged: (1) The SBIRT screening project, (2) cultural issues and (3) patient follow-up. Findings revealed a general willingness toward the concept of screening and delivering brief interventions in primary care although increased workload and uncertainties about remuneration for the service may be a barrier to future implementation. There was a perceived problem of substance misuse that was not currently being met and a strong perception that patients were not willing to reveal substance use due cultural barriers and fear of police involvement. In conclusion this qualitative process evaluation provided essential insight into implementing SBIRT in the Middle East. In conclusion, despite physician willingness and a clinical need for a substance misuse care pathway, the reluctance among patients to admit to substance use in this culture needs to be addressed to enable successful implementation.

Aim: To analyse quantitative changes in patient well-being concurrent with chaplaincy interventions in a retrospective study of a group of Primary Care centres in Sandwell and West Birmingham, United Kingdom., Background: Anecdotal evidence suggests that support from trained Primary Care Chaplains may be particularly useful for those with subclinical mental health issues; it can reduce the tendency to 'medicalise unhappiness' and is a positive response to patients with medically unexplained symptoms. However, to date there has been no published research attempting to quantify their contribution., Method: Data were gathered from a group of Primary Care Centres, which make use of a shared Chaplaincy service. Demographic data and pre-post scores on the Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (WEMWBS) were collected for patients who had attended consultations with a Chaplain. These were subjected to tests of statistical significance to evaluate the possible contribution of chaplaincy to patient well-being along with possible confounding variables., Findings: a substantial improvement in WEMWBS scores (mean=9 points, BCa 95% CI [7.23, 10.79], P=0.001) post-intervention. The improvement in scores was highest for those with initially lower levels of well-being. There is therefore evidence that chaplaincy interventions correlate with an improvement of holistic well-being as measured by a WEMWBS score. A prospective study on a larger scale would provide more detailed information on the interaction of possible variables. Further study is also required to evaluate the implications of this result for patient outcomes and GP resources. The efficacy of Primary Care Chaplaincy is under-researched and difficult to measure. This paper represents the first attempt to quantify a measurable improvement in the well-being of patients who are referred to the service.

Aim: This paper describes the methods, strategies and technologies used to conduct a scoping literature review examining primary care (PC) and public health (PH) collaboration. It presents challenges encountered as well as recommendations and 'lessons learned' from conducting the review with a large geographically distributed team comprised of researchers and decision-makers using an integrated knowledge translation approach., Background: Scoping studies comprehensively map literature in a specific area guided by general research questions. This methodology is especially useful in researching complex topics. Thus, their popularity is growing. Stakeholder consultations are an important strategy to enhance study results. Therefore, information about how best to involve stakeholders throughout the process is necessary to improve quality and uptake of reviews., Methods: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five stages: identifying research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarizing and reporting results. Technological tools and strategies included: citation management software (Reference Manager®), qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 8), web conferencing (Elluminate Live!) and a PH portal (eHealthOntario), teleconferences, email and face-to-face meetings., Findings: Of 6125 papers identified, 114 were retained as relevant. Most papers originated in the United Kingdom (38%), the United States (34%) and Canada (19%). Of 80 papers that reported on specific collaborations, most were descriptive reports (51.3%). Research studies represented 34 papers: 31% were program evaluations, 9% were literature reviews and 9% were discussion papers. Key strategies to ensure rigor in conducting a scoping literature review while engaging a large geographically dispersed team are presented for each stage. The use of enabling technologies was essential to managing the process. Leadership in championing the use of technologies and a clear governance structure were necessary for their successful uptake.

The incidence of childhood obesity is rising in the United Kingdom and this has far-reaching and serious consequences both for the physical and psychological well-being of the child, as well as significant financial implications for the health service. General practitioners (GPs) play a central role in identifying and assessing such children and directing them to the best services. While most cases of obesity are simply due to an imbalance in calorie intake and expenditure, children do need to be formally assessed to ensure that red flags are not missed, which might signify an important underlying aetiology, co-morbidity or complication. To date, there have not been tools available to guide a GP through this assessment. In this paper, we present and explain the thinking behind a tool, which was developed for use by GPs from Bristolas part of a trial to assess the transferability of a childhood obesity clinic into primary care. We look at the evidence base behind the guidelines and then assess the appropriateness and safety of the 152 referrals made using this tool. We believe that this screening tool would enable over 85% of obese children to seek their initial weight management in primary care. Additional evaluation is needed in different regions to ensure effectiveness, sensitivity and specificity of this new tool.