Search

Background General practice has significant interdisciplinary characteristics, both qualitative research and mixed methods research are applicable to scientific research in this field. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of relevant academic papers published in China, but the overall quality of the literature has not been systematically assessed. Objective To explore the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed methods research literature published in the field of primary care and general practice. Methods From August 2022 to April 2023, four investigators analyzed and assessed the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed methods research published in the field of primary care and general practice in China in 2021 using the qualitative assessment tools of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), respectively. The researchers were grouped in pairs and independently for information extraction and quality evaluation. Results A total of 35 qualitative research and 9 mixed methods research were included. Among the qualitative research, 23 literature (65.71%) did not sufficiently considered ethical issues; recruitment of participants was not discussed in 94.29% (33/35) of the research; the relationship between the researcher and the participants was not adequately considered in 82.86% (29/35) of the research; 42.86% (15/35) of the research had a sample size of

Background At a time when healthcare reforms are being implemented in the new era, the scientific research output in the field of general practice and primary care in China has grown rapidly in recent years. However, the methodological quality of the literature is unclear. Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of representative quantitative studies and systematic reviews/guidelines in the field of general practice and primary care in China in 2021, to reveal the overall methodological quality characteristics of scientific papers in this field. Methods A sample of 449 papers was selected from a total of 3 122 papers collected in the Primary Care and General Practice Research Paper Productivity Report in China in 2021. A methodological quality assessment group consisting of 22 researchers in the field of public health and general practice from different institutions was organized to evaluate the quality of 320 of these papers (71.3%) using six different quality assessment tools for different study designs (cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and consensus) by working in pairs and under the training and guidance of an expert in evidence-based medical methodology. Descriptive statistics method was used to report the overall quality assessment results of the various types of research papers. Results Of the 114 cross-sectional research papers, quality issues were prevalent in the areas of "whether the source population was representative of the study's target population" (41.2%) , "whether the reliability and validity of the survey instrument could be conclusively demonstrated" (32.5%) , "whether the survey is clinically meaningful" (26.3%) ; of the 25 cohort study papers, quality issues were more concentrated in the areas of "whether the cohort was adequately followed up" (44.0%) and "whether the co-intervention was similar among groups" (56.0%) ; of the 34 pre- and post-intervention studies, quality issues were mostly found in the areas of "whether the target outcome was measured multiple times before and after the intervention" (97.1%) , "whether the sample size was large enough to generate confidence in the study results" (82.4%) , and "whether the study participants were representative of the eligible population" (61.8%) ; of the 122 randomized controlled trials, quality concerns were mostly in the areas of "blinding of different stakeholders" (25.4%-61.5%) , "adequate concealment of random allocation" (41.8%) , and "other risks of bias" (72.1%) ; of the 19 systematic reviews, quality issues were mostly found in the areas "is the source of funding for the included studies reported" (100.0%) , "were the methods of the review developed before the start of the review" (94.7%) , "was heterogeneity reasonably discussed and explained" (84.2%) , and "was the risk of bias of individual studies considered" (84.2%) . Finally, the quality of all six clinical guidelines/consensus was rated low. Conclusion The scientific research output of recent years in the field of primary care and general practice in China is still of limited quality in general, which is particularly evident in the categories of cross-sectional studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, guidelines and consensus. This highlights the urgency and importance of strengthening systematic training in basic research in this area of research in China, increasing the importance of research and evidence-based reporting standards, and developing pragmatic methodological specifications for the development of guidelines.

Schizophrenia could affect the social and occupational functions of patients in the long term. Community-based mental health services and management models promote mental health by improving accessibility, acceptability, affordability, practicality and scalability. In the community management model, long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents are one of the main strategies for the treatment of schizophrenia, but there is a lack of relevant evidence. This paper systematically and comprehensively discussed the benefits of long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents in patients with schizophrenia, including effectiveness and safety, compliance, attitude to use, social function recovery and community rehabilitation. The results of this study showed that long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents can exert superior efficacy than oral drugs in the community rehabilitation of schizophrenia patients under different community management modes, not only reflected in the disease recurrence rate and readmission rate, but also in the recovery of social functioning and the reduction of accident rate and other aspects of excellent performance. However, the overall prescription rate of long-acting injectable antipsychotic agents is still low in China. The main reasons include insufficient information sharing between medical institutions and communities in primary level, low community medical services and treatment rate, low follow-up rate of patients, and less community psychiatric rehabilitation. This study can provide some references for the community treatment of schizophrenia patients in China, explore more community treatment programs, and improve the treatment effect and quality of life of schizophrenia patients in China.

Schizophrenia is a chronic, recurrent and disabling psychotic disorder. Enhancing patient adherence and preventing recurrence are the key factors of treating schizophrenia, and the core determinants of prognosis and social functional recovery of these patients. Recommended by guidelines/consensuses as one treatment for schizophrenia, long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotics have been an important intervention for treating schizophrenia and for preventing its recurrence. At the same time, as community settings are important sites for the rehabilitation of schizophrenia, considerable efforts have been made to explore models of community-based management of schizophrenia. Currently, the use of LAI antipsychotics in community-based management of schizophrenia has been highlighted in multiple policies and documents of China, but its application is negatively influenced partially by community physicians' insufficient understanding and application skills regarding LAI antipsychotics, which has become a bottleneck that hinders the comprehensive rehabilitation of schizophrenics. In view of this, a consensus was developed based on clinical evidence, previous guidelines and consensuses, expert individual practice and features of community settings in China, by a group of 13 experts, including psychiatrists from the Chinese Schizophrenia Coordination Group, Chinese Society of Psychiatry, and general medicine experts from the Chinese Society of General Practice. This consensus will significantly contribute to the solving of problems in the use of LAI antipsychotics for community-based management of schizophrenia, and the improvement of patient adherence and prognosis.

The COVID-19 containment has become a top global public health concern. China has obtained a phased achievement in containing COVID-19 pandemic, during the process, primary medical institutions and general practitioner teams in regional medical consortiums have played a key role. To better guide and standardize the development of regional medical consortiums, give full play to the bridge role and grid management of general medicine in COVID-19 pandemic containment, and consolidate the achievements of COVID-19 pandemic containment further, we invited a group of related experts to develop the Expert Advice on Community-based Grid Containment of COVID-19 Pandemic by the General Practice Network & Regional Medical Consortium (the First Version for Trial Implementation) (hereinafter referred to as the Expert Advice) following in-depth analysis and thorough consideration of literature review results, suggestions extensively collected and practical evidence, which mainly includes the following aspects: the essential characters of the general practice network & regional medical consortium, organizational structure, contents and separation of responsibilities and duties, operation mechanism, content of the work, workflow, training and assessment. We hope the Expert Advice will contribute to the construction and operation of the general practice network & regional medical consortium in various regions for COVID-19 containment.

Abstract Background Prescribing for patients taking multiple medicines (i.e. polypharmacy) is challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Limited evidence suggests that the integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve the management of these patients. The aim of this study is to develop and test an intervention involving pharmacists, working within GP practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland, which has a mixed public and private primary healthcare system. Methods This non-randomised pilot study will use a mixed-methods approach. Four general practices will be purposively sampled and recruited. A pharmacist will join the practice team for 6 months. They will participate in the management of repeat prescribing and undertake medication reviews (which will address high-risk prescribing and potentially inappropriate prescribing, deprescribing and cost-effective and generic prescribing) with adult patients. Pharmacists will also provide prescribing advice regarding the use of preferred drugs, undertake clinical audits, join practice team meetings and facilitate practice-based education. Throughout the 6-month intervention period, anonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data will be collected. A nested Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) study will be undertaken during months 4 and 5 of the 6-month intervention period to explore the impact of the intervention in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). For this, a sub-set of 50 patients aged ≥ 65 years with significant polypharmacy (≥ 10 repeat medicines) will be recruited from each practice and invited to a medication review with the pharmacist. PROMs and healthcare utilisation data will be collected using patient questionnaires, and a 6-week follow-up review conducted. Acceptability of the intervention will be explored using pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be undertaken and an economic evaluation conducted. Discussion This non-randomised pilot study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and potential effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and provide data on whether a randomised controlled trial of this intervention is indicated. It will also provide a deeper understanding as to how a pharmacist working as part of the general practice team will affect organisational processes and professional relationships in a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.