Search

Living with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for almost 40 years has not been an easy journey. My disease has been severe and difficult to manage; from the beginning there were challenges getting a diagnosis and in finding medications that were effective long term. Thirty years ago, unable to cope with the extreme pain and with 3 children aged 8, 11, and 13 who needed a functioning mother, my doctor prescribed an opioid. This medication gave me back some quality of life but taking opioids is not without significant risks. No one discussed the challenges I would face if and when the time came to stop taking them. With the opioid crisis there has been more pressure from government and medical licensing bodies to implement policies to restrict access for patients prescribed opioids and to encourage tapering. With the change in policy additional funding and resources are needed to help patients through the process but those supports do not exist across Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Case management (CM) is among the most studied effective models of integrated care for people with complex needs. The goal of this study is to scale up and assess CM in primary healthcare for people with complex needs., Methods and Analysis: The research questions are: (1) which mechanisms contribute to the successful scale-up of CM for people with complex needs in primary healthcare?; (2) how do contextual factors within primary healthcare organisations contribute to these mechanisms? and (3) what are the relationships between the actors, contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes when scaling-up CM for people with complex needs in primary healthcare? We will conduct a mixed methods Canadian interprovincial project in Quebec, New-Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It will include a scale-up phase and an evaluation phase. At inception, a scale-up committee will be formed in each province to oversee the scale-up phase. We will assess scale-up using a realist evaluation guided by the RAMESES checklist to develop an initial programme theory on CM scale-up. Then we will test and refine the programme theory using a mixed-methods multiple case study with 10 cases, each case being the scalable unit of the intervention in a region. Each primary care clinic within the case will recruit 30 adult patients with complex needs who frequently use healthcare services. Qualitative data will be used to identify contexts, mechanisms and certain outcomes for developing context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Quantitative data will be used to describe patient characteristics and measure scale-up outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained. Engaging researchers, decision-makers, clinicians and patient partners on the study Steering Committee will foster knowledge mobilisation and impact. The dissemination plan will be developed with the Steering Committee with messages and dissemination methods targeted for each audience., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Context. There is growing evidence supporting patients' engagement (PE) in primary care research to improve the quality, relevance, and uptake of research. However, guidance is still needed to plan and operationalize this engagement during the research process. Objective. To develop a logic model illustrating empirically the causal links between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes of PE in an implementation research program in primary care. Study design. Instrumental case study. Setting. A research program (PriCARE) aiming to implement and evaluate a case management intervention (CMI) in primary care clinics across five provinces in Canada. Population studied. Research team members. Methods. Data collection. Participant observation and in-depth interviews (n=22) conducted by two independent research assistants with research team members: principal investigators (n=5); co-investigators (n=2); research coordinators and assistants (n=8); and patient partners (n=7). Analysis. Deductive thematic analysis using components of the logic model as coding categories. All data were coded using NVivo 12 software. Data were reduced and organized in a first logic model version. Team meetings helped to refine the logic model. The final version was validated by all research team members. Results. The logic model provides an empirical illustration of the relationship between context, resources, activities, and expected outcomes for PE. Mobilized resources (human, financial, organizational, and communicational) allow research team members to be involved in many activities related to PE: recruitment, training, and support of patient partners; development of a governance structure; participation in research activities; agreement on decision-making processes; training and support of clinicians; development of tools for patients' involvement in the CMI. These activities lead to the following benefits for health research: improved communication amongst all team members, results and knowledge translation; development of a PE culture; capacity building; democratization of health research; and for healthcare: improved implementation of the intervention; improved patient engagement in their care; better health outcomes and resource utilization; support of decision-makers and clinicians; and better practices. Conclusions. The logic model may be useful for the planning, operationalization and evaluation of PPE in primary care research programs., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Context: Health researchers are increasingly engaging patients and their families as partners in the research process, from inception to knowledge translation. The trend toward 'patient-oriented' research is encouraged by a growing view that studies which integrate the patient perspective will make better use of resources to produce more relevant evidence that can be more easily translated to clinical settings. While there is an emerging literature on best practices, challenges, and learnings related to patient engagement (PE), few studies consider the experiences of patient partners (PP) and researchers in the same project. This presentation will present PP and researcher experiences of PE, highlighting important similarities and differences and proposing recommendations. Objectives: To characterize PE experience from the perspective of researchers and PP working together on the same research program, PriCARE; to identify successes and challenges; to ascertain contributions of PE in health research. Study Design: Qualitative. Setting or Dataset: This study was conducted within the larger 5-province PriCARE study examining a nurse-led case management intervention for primary care patients with complex needs. Population studied: 22 members of the study team (7 PP, 8 coordinators, 2 co-investigators, 5 principal investigators). Methods: Data collection: In-depth interviews using guides co-created by researchers and PP covering topics such as PE-related training and knowledge, and reflections on PE processes and impact. Research assistants external to the PriCARE study conducted interviews, transcribed researcher interviews, and generated a summary of PP interviews. Analysis: Data were analyzed thematically using a coding framework that was co-developed with PP. Outcome Measures: Researcher and patient experiences of PE, PP contributions to health research. Results: All team members need PE training at the beginning of and throughout the research process. Evolving trust and flexibility helped team members to navigate different experiences and priorities. PP make integral contributions to study and instrument design, data analysis, and knowledge translation. Clear expectations about the degree and nature of PE and team members' roles are critical. Conclusions: Meaningful PE requires patient-researcher partnership and clear expectation setting at the outset and throughout the research process, and ongoing flexibility to adapt., Competing Interests: Authors report none., (2021 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)