Primary care research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

PURPOSE To identify and prioritize the needs for new research evidence for primary health care (PHC) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) about organization, models of care, and financing of PHC. METHODS Three-round expert panel consultation of LMIC PHC practitioners and academics sampled from global networks, via web-based surveys. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. Round 1 (pre–Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organization and models of care and about financing. Round 2 invited panelists to rate the importance of each question, and in round 3 panelists provided priority ranking. RESULTS One hundred forty-one practitioners and academics from 50 LMICs from all global regions participated and identified 744 knowledge gaps critical to improving PHC organization and 479 for financing. Four priority areas emerged: effective transition of primary and secondary services, horizontal integration within a multidisciplinary team and intersectoral referral, integration of private and public sectors, and ways to support successfully functioning PHC professionals. Financial evidence priorities were mechanisms to drive investment into PHC, redress inequities, increase service quality, and determine the minimum necessary budget for good PHC. CONCLUSIONS This novel approach toward PHC needs in LMICs, informed by local academics and professionals, created an expansive and prioritized list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC organization and financing. It resulted in research questions, offering valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation. Its source and context specificity, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing research findings

A Pilot Study of the Preliminary Efficacy of Pain Buddy: A Novel Intervention for the Management of Children’s Cancer-Related Pain

Objectives Cancer‐related pain in children is prevalent and undermanaged. Mobile health (mHealth) applications provide a promising avenue to address the gap in pain management in children with cancer. Pain Buddy is a multicomponent mHealth application developed to manage cancer‐related pain in children. The goal of this paper is to present preliminary efficacy data of the impact of Pain Buddy on children\u27s pain severity and frequency. Methods In a randomized controlled trial over 60 days, children (N = 48) reported daily pain on a tablet while receiving usual care. Those in the intervention group (N = 20) received remote symptom monitoring and skills training for pain management. Children in the attention control group (N = 28) only reported on their pain. Results Both groups experienced significant reductions in average daily pain over the study period (B = −0.10, z = −3.40, P = 0.001), with no group differences evident (z = −0.83, P = 0.40). However, the intervention group reported significantly fewer instances of moderate to severe pain compared with the control group, t(4125) = 2.67, P = 0.007. In addition, the intervention group reported no instances of moderate to severe pain toward the end of the study period. Conclusion Pain Buddy is an innovative and interactive mHealth application that aims to improve pain and symptom management among children with cancer. The findings from this pilot study suggest that Pain Buddy may aid in the reduction of pain severity in children during cancer treatment

Primary care financing: a systematic assessment of research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

Introduction: Financing of primary healthcare (PHC) is the key to the provision of equitable universal care. We aimed to identify and prioritise the perceived needs of PHC practitioners and researchers for new research in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) about financing of PHC. Methods: Three-round expert panel consultation using web-based surveys of LMIC PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers sampled from global networks. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. First round (PreDelphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about financing. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised to two lists of questions. Round 2 (Delphi Round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In Round 3 (Delphi Round 2), panellists ranked questions in order of importance. Results: A diverse range of PHC practitioners, academics and policy-makers in LMIC representing all global regions identified 479 knowledge gaps as potentially critical to improving PHC financing. Round 2 provided 31 synthesised questions on financing for rating. The top 16 were ranked in Round 3e to produce four prioritised research questions. Conclusions: This novel exercise created an expansive and prioritised list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC financing research questions. This offers valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation, including research funders and academics seeking research priorities. The source and context specificity of this research, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics on a global and local basis, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing the findings

Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach

Introduction Since the Alma-Ata Declaration 40 years ago, primary healthcare (PHC) has made great advances, but there is insufficient research on models of care and outcomes—particularly for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic efforts to identify these gaps and develop evidence-based strategies for improvement in LMICs has been lacking. We report on a global effort to identify and prioritise the knowledge needs of PHC practitioners and researchers in LMICs about PHC organisation. Methods Three-round modified Delphi using web-based surveys. PHC practitioners and academics and policy-makers from LMICs sampled from global networks. First round (pre-Delphi survey) collated possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organisation. Responses were independently coded, collapsed and synthesised. Round 2 (Delphi round 1) invited panellists to rate importance of each question. In round 3 (Delphi round 2), panellists ranked questions into final order of importance. Literature review conducted on 36 questions and gap map generated. Results Diverse range of practitioners and academics in LMICs from all global regions generated 744 questions for PHC organisation. In round 2, 36 synthesised questions on organisation were rated. In round 3, the top 16 questions were ranked to yield four prioritised questions in each area. Literature reviews confirmed gap in evidence on prioritised questions in LMICs. Conclusion In line with the 2018 Astana Declaration, this mixed-methods study has produced a unique list of essential gaps in our knowledge of how best to organise PHC, priority-ordered by LMIC expert informants capable of shaping their mitigation. Research teams in LMIC have developed implementation plans to answer the top four ranked research questions

Primary Care Research Priorities in Low-and Middle-Income Countries

PURPOSE To identify and prioritize the needs for new research evidence for primary health care (PHC) in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) about organization, models of care, and financing of PHC. METHODS Three-round expert panel consultation of LMIC PHC practitioners and academics sampled from global networks, via web-based surveys. Iterative literature review conducted in parallel. Round 1 (pre-Delphi survey) elicited possible research questions to address knowledge gaps about organization and models of care and about financing. Round 2 invited panelists to rate the importance of each question, and in round 3 panelists provided priority ranking. RESULTS One hundred forty-one practitioners and academics from 50 LMICs from all global regions participated and identified 744 knowledge gaps critical to improving PHC organization and 479 for financing. Four priority areas emerged: effective transition of primary and secondary services, horizontal integration within a multidisciplinary team and intersectoral referral, integration of private and public sectors, and ways to support successfully functioning PHC professionals. Financial evidence priorities were mechanisms to drive investment into PHC, redress inequities, increase service quality, and determine the minimum necessary budget for good PHC. CONCLUSIONS This novel approach toward PHC needs in LMICs, informed by local academics and professionals, created an expansive and prioritized list of critical knowledge gaps in PHC organization and financing. It resulted in research questions, offering valuable guidance to global supporters of primary care evaluation and implementation. Its source and context specificity, informed by LMIC practitioners and academics, should increase the likelihood of local relevance and eventual success in implementing research findings.The authors agreed to bid for funding through their shared professional network–the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA)–because the aim of the grant aligns with WONCA’s academic mission. Funding came from Ariadne Laboratories through Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is the recipient of a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant

Linking Databases in Collaborative and Culturally Safe Ways to Evaluate the Effectiveness of PAX-Good Behaviour Game (PAX) in First Nations Communities.

Objectives The overarching research objective was to examine, culturally adapt, and further evaluate a mental health promotion approach called the PAX within 8 First Nations communities. This presentation describes a research process whereby First Nations community members and researchers worked in collaborative and culturally safe ways to reach their research objectives. Approach Building on a strong existing relationship between Swampy Cree Tribal Council (SCTC) members from Northern Canada and academic researchers, a team was formed to prepare the research proposal. This team included community members, leaders from First Nations organizations, decision makers, program developers and researchers. This research was guided by two-eyed seeing, a principle developed by a Mi’kmaw Elder, that recognizes both Indigenous and Western ways of knowing, where one worldview does not dominate the other. The research process was compliant with Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) principles that ensure self-determination of First Nations communities over research involving their people. Results A First Nations community liaison was hired as a research team member ensuring that traditional and cultural protocols were adhered to and connections to community members facilitated and sustained. Over the course of the research, the team met monthly to oversee implementation and annually with SCTC community members for guidance and for sharing and interpreting results.  All 8 communities were actively engaged and benefitted from their involvement. Seeing the value of examining PAX’s effectiveness through linkages to administrative datasets, community members supported engagement of an additional 16 First Nations communities thereby ensuring an adequate sample size for the study. Health and education databases were linked to program data from 20 First Nations communities. Infographics, lay summaries and presentations were prepared for meaningful knowledge exchange. Conclusion First Nations communities deemed it essential to understand what works and for whom regarding mental health promotion. Building relationships with First Nations community members based on trust and respect provided information that was relevant and beneficial to their communities. This relationship-building should be considered when developing research timelines and budgets

Evaluation of a standard provision versus an autonomy promotive exercise referral programme: rationale and study design

Background The National Institute of Clinical Excellence in the UK has recommended that the effectiveness of ongoing exercise referral schemes to promote physical activity should be examined in research trials. Recent empirical evidence in health care and physical activity promotion contexts provides a foundation for testing the utility of a Self Determination Theory (SDT) -based exercise referral consultation. Methods/Design Design: An exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial comparing standard provision exercise on prescription with a Self Determination Theory-based (SDT) exercise on prescription intervention. Participants: 347 people referred to the Birmingham Exercise on Prescription scheme between November 2007 and July 2008. The 13 exercise on prescription sites in Birmingham were randomised to current practice (n=7) or to the SDT-based intervention (n=6). Outcomes measured at 3 and 6-months: Minutes of moderate or vigorous physical activity per week assessed using the 7-day Physical Activity Recall; physical health: blood pressure and weight; health status measured using the Dartmouth CO-OP charts; anxiety and depression measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and vitality measured by the subjective vitality score; motivation and processes of change: perceptions of autonomy support from the advisor, satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness via physical activity, and motivational regulations for exercise. Discussion This trial will determine whether an exercise referral programme based on Self Determination Theory increases physical activity and other health outcomes compared to a standard programme and will test the underlying SDT-based process model (perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, motivation regulations, outcomes) via structural equation modelling. Trial registration The trial is registered as Current Controlled trials ISRCTN07682833

Communication style and exercise compliance in physiotherapy (CONNECT). A cluster randomized controlled trial to test a theory-based intervention to increase chronic low back pain patients’ adherence to physiotherapists’ recommendations: study rationale, design, and methods

Physical activity and exercise therapy are among the accepted clinical rehabilitation guidelines and are recommended self-management strategies for chronic low back pain. However, many back pain sufferers do not adhere to their physiotherapist’s recommendations. Poor patient adherence may decrease the effectiveness of advice and home-based rehabilitation exercises. According to self-determination theory, support from health care practitioners can promote patients’ autonomous motivation and greater long-term behavioral persistence (e.g., adherence to physiotherapists’ recommendations). The aim of this trial is to assess the effect of an intervention designed to increase physiotherapists’ autonomy-supportive communication on low back pain patients’ adherence to physical activity and exercise therapy recommendations. \ud \ud This study will be a single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. Outpatient physiotherapy centers (N =12) in Dublin, Ireland (population = 1.25 million) will be randomly assigned using a computer-generated algorithm to either the experimental or control arm. Physiotherapists in the experimental arm (two hospitals and four primary care clinics) will attend eight hours of communication skills training. Training will include handouts, workbooks, video examples, role-play, and discussion designed to teach physiotherapists how to communicate in a manner that promotes autonomous patient motivation. Physiotherapists in the waitlist control arm (two hospitals and four primary care clinics) will not receive this training. Participants (N = 292) with chronic low back pain will complete assessments at baseline, as well as 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after their first physiotherapy appointment. Primary outcomes will include adherence to physiotherapy recommendations, as well as low back pain, function, and well-being. Participants will be blinded to treatment allocation, as they will not be told if their physiotherapist has received the communication skills training. Outcome assessors will also be blinded. \ud \ud We will use linear mixed modeling to test between arm differences both in the mean levels and the rates of change of the outcome variables. We will employ structural equation modeling to examine the process of change, including hypothesized mediation effects. \ud \ud This trial will be the first to test the effect of a self-determination theory-based communication skills training program for physiotherapists on their low back pain patients’ adherence to rehabilitation recommendations. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63723433\u

Fostering global primary care research: A capacity-building approach

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research-a core element of high-quality PHC-in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and 'brain drain' may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how todeal with these tensions

Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research - a core element of high-quality PHC - in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and € brain drain' may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how to deal with these tensions