Algunas cuestiones pendientes : evaluación de la investigación cualitativa en convocatorias competitivas. "No midas mi peso con una jarra"

La investigación cualitativa es un paradigma de la investigación científica en ciencias sociales de amplia aplicación en las ciencias de la salud. Ofrece herramientas rigurosas que permiten explicar los problemas de salud desde la perspectiva de los actores involucrados (pacientes, cuidadores y profesionales). Está ampliamente aceptada en el mundo científico sanitario internacional como válida y necesaria. Sin embargo, es necesario que los proyectos de índole cualitativa se realicen de forma creíble para lo cual se requiere de diseños rigurosos. Muchos investigadores han trabajado sobre los criterios de rigor y algunos de ellos ofrecen estrategias que potencian la realización de estudios de mejor calidad. Es necesario conocer dichos criterios para su aplicación en la evaluación de proyectos presentados en las convocatorias competitivas tanto nacionales como regionales. En este articulo se presentan las consideraciones metodológicas y conceptuales del paradigma cualitativo y las necesidades especiales que presentan los diseños cualitativos para que no se cometa la equivocación de terminar midiendo "el peso en litros y con una jarra"

Barriers and Facilitators for the Implementation of Primary Prevention and Health Promotion Activities in Primary Care : A Synthesis through Meta-Ethnography

Evidence supports the implementation of primary prevention and health promotion (PP&HP) activities but primary care (PC) professionals show resistance to implementing these activities. The aim was to synthesize the available qualitative research on barriers and facilitators identified by PC physicians and nurses in the implementation of PP&HP in adults. A systematic search of three databases was conducted and supported by manual searches. The 35 articles included were translated into each other and a new interpretation of the concepts extracted was generated. The factors affecting the implementation of PP&HP activities in PC according to professionals were fitted into a five-level ecological model: intrapersonal factors, interpersonal processes, institutional factors, community factors and public policy. At the intrapersonal level we find professionals' beliefs about PP&HP, experiences, skills and knowledge, and selfconcept. The attitudes and behavior towards PP&HP of patients, specialists, practice managers and colleagues (interpersonal factors) affect the feasibility of implementing PP&HP. Institutional level: PC is perceived as well-placed to implement PP&HP but workload, lack of time and referral resources, and the predominance of the biomedical model (which prioritizes disease treatment) hamper the implementation of PP&HP. The effectiveness of financial incentives and tools such as guidelines and alarms/reminders is conditioned by professionals' attitudes to them. Community factors include patients' social and cultural characteristics (religion, financial resources, etc.), local referral resources, mass-media messages and pharmaceutical industry campaigns, and the importance given to PP&HP in the curriculum in university. Finally, policies affect the distribution of resources, thus affecting the implementation of PP&HP. Research on barriers and facilitators in the implementation of PP&HP activities in multirisk management is scarce. The conceptual overview provided by this synthesis resulted in the development of practical recommendations for the design of PP&HP in PC. However, the effectiveness of these recommendations needs to be demonstrated

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Case Management in Advanced Heart Failure Patients Attended in Primary Care : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tots els drets reservats $a Aims: Nurse-led case management (CM) may improve quality of life (QoL) for advanced heart failure (HF) patients. No systematic review (SR), however, has summarized its effectiveness/cost-effectiveness. We aimed to evaluate the effect of such programs in primary care settings in advanced HF patients. We examined and summarized evidence on QoL, mortality, hospitalization, self-care, and cost-effectiveness. Methods and results: The MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Clinical Trials, WHO, Registry of International Clinical Trials, and Central Cochrane were searched up to March 2022. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria instrument to assess risk-of-bias in economic evaluations, Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 for clinical trials, and an adaptation of Robins-I for quasi-experimental and cohort studies were employed. Results from nurse-led CM programs did not reduce mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15; participants = 1345; studies = 6; I = 47%). They decreased HF hospitalizations (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.91; participants = 1989; studies = 8; I = 0%) and all-cause ones (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; participants = 1012; studies = 5; I = 36%). QoL improved in medium-term follow-up (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; participants = 1228; studies = 8; I = 28%), and self-care was not statistically significant improved (SMD 0.66, 95% CI −0.84 to 2.17; participants = 450; studies = 3; I = 97%). A wide variety of costs ranging from USD 4975 to EUR 27,538 was observed. The intervention was cost-effective at ≤EUR 60,000/QALY. Conclusions: Nurse-led CM reduces all-cause hospital admissions and HF hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality. QoL improved at medium-term follow-up. Such programs could be cost-effective in high-income countries

Are we leaving someone behind? A critical discourse analysis on the understanding of public participation among people with experiences of participatory research

Participatory research (PR) is on the rise. In Spain, PR is scarce in the field of health, although there is an increasing interest in the matter. A comprehensive understanding of the meanings and practical implications of "public participation" is essential to promote participation in health research. The aim of the study is to explore the discursive positions on PR among individuals with experience in participatory processes in different areas and how this understanding translates into practice. We conducted a critical discourse analysis of 21 individuals with experience in PR and participatory processes (13 women, 8 men), mainly from the field of health and other areas of knowledge. Sixteen were Spanish and the rest were from the United Kingdom (3), United States (1), and Canada (1). Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. The fieldwork was conducted between March 2019 and November 2019. The dominant discourses on public participation are situated along two axes situated on a continuum: the purpose of public participation and how power should be distributed in public participation processes. The first is instrumental public participation, which sees participatory research as a tool to improve research results and focuses on institutional interests and power-decision making is hold by researchers and institutions. The second, is transformative public participation, with a focus on social change and an equitable sharing of decision-making power between the public and researchers. All discursive positions stated that they do not carry out specific strategies to include the most socially disadvantaged individuals or groups. A shift in the scientific approach about knowledge, along with time and resources, are required to move towards a more balanced power distribution in the processes involving the public

Learning from patients : trainers' use of narratives for learning and teaching

There is a growing interest in how doctors learn from narratives about individual cases, reflected, for example, in the use of e-portfolios. This study aimed to evaluate how GP trainers conceptualised 'learning from patients', and what use they currently made of narrative recounts in training. Thematic analysis (TA) and corpus-linguistic (CL) analysis, with data collected from a convenience sample of trainers in the UK, Ireland, and Spain. GP trainers in the three settings were contacted, and volunteers recruited (22 in UK, 24 in Ireland, and 16 in Spain). Volunteers were interviewed and asked to offer a narrative about 'a patient you learned from' and whether they used narratives as a training device. There were no differences between settings. Trainers described an engaged and personal relationship with patients. They described learning about themselves, the human condition, and about how to live and die well. Their narratives were structured in various ways. At times, they led to precise conclusions: at times, they were perceived as meaningful, but resisting analysis. As regards teaching through narrative, it was reported as commonly used, but present practice appears ad hoc rather than planned. The lack of difference between settings suggests a degree of commonality about how trainers perceive learning and teaching in the areas explored, but cannot be generalised further. The level of personal engagement was more than anticipated, and suggests the label 'doctor-patient relationship', as the term is used, may not be adequate to describe the nature of some interactions

La participación ciudadana en la investigación desde la perspectivade investigadores de atención primaria

Objetivo: Explorar las debilidades, amenazas, fortalezas y oportunidades (DAFO) para el desarrollo de la participación de la ciudadanía en los proyectos de investigación gestionados por el Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol) según los investigadores de atención primaria de salud de Catalu ̃na.Método: Estudio transversal realizado en 2017 con 36 equipos de investigación de atención primaria de salud acreditados por el IDIAPJGol y su personal de gestión. Se dise ̃nó y pilotó un cuestionario abierto(papel y online) para desarrollar una técnica DAFO. Se obtuvieron 65 respuestas (14 en papel y 51 online).Se realizó un análisis de contenido temático.Resultados: La mayoría de informantes considera la participación de la ciudadanía en la investigació nuna estrategia útil, innovadora, viable e imprescindible, pero exige un cambio de mentalidad y un alejamiento del paradigma jerárquico. Puede ser difícil su ejecución y complicar los estudios. Les preocupa a qué ciudadanos implicar, cómo seleccionarlos, los posibles conflictos de intereses y las necesidades deformación. Las principales propuestas para su implementación son difundir estrategias previas, fomentar la motivación y las sinergias entre ciudadanos, investigadores e instituciones, y clarificar los roles delos actores implicados. El IDIAPJGol debería elaborar recomendaciones para la participación de la ciudadanía en la investigación, incentivar su inclusión, disponer de un referente y asesorar a los equipos investigadores. Conclusiones: A pesar de los retos, desarrollar la participación de la ciudadanía en la investigación en atención primaria de salud es imprescindible y factible, pero partiendo de una estrategia participativa con todos los actores. La ciudadanía puede participar en cualquier dise ̃no y fase de la investigación adaptando cada proyecto, siendo la atención primaria un ámbito privilegiado para desarrollar la participación ciudadana en la investigación.Objective: Explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for development of public involvement in research by Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol) according to primary health care researchers in Catalonia (Spain). Methods: Cross-sectional study carried out in 2017 with 36 primary health care research teams accredited by IDIAPJGol and its management staff. An open questionnaire (paper and online) was designed and piloted to develop a SWOT technique, and 65 answers were obtained (14 in paper and 51 online). A thematic content analysis was carried out. Results: Most informants consider public involvement in research a useful, innovative, viable and essential strategy, but it requires a change of mentality and a move away from the hierarchical paradigm. It can be difficult to execute and can complicate studies. They are concerned about which citizens should be involve, how to select them, possible conflicts of interest and training needs. The main proposals for its implementation are to disseminate previous strategies, encourage motivation and synergies among citizens, researchers and institutions, and to clarify the roles of the actors involved. IDIAPJGol should develop recommendations for the public involvement in research, encourage their inclusion, have a mentor and advise the research teams. Conclusions: Despite the challenges, developing public involvement in research in primary health care is essential and feasible, what it is more should be based on a participatory strategy with all actors. The citizens can participate in any kind of design and phase of the research, adapting each project, being the primary health care a privileged area to develop the public involvement in research

Understanding the physical, social, and emotional experiences of people with uncontrolled Type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study

The purpose of this study was to identify the perceptions, barriers, and facilitators of self-management of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to determine the factors to consider when developing and implementing a person-centered intervention in patients with poor glycemic control attending primary care.CIBER of Diabetes and Associated Metabolic Diseases (CIBERDEM) is an initiative included in Plan Nacional de I+D+I and cofinanced by Instituto de Salud Carlos III-Subdireccion General de Evaluación and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)

INTEGRA study protocol: primary care intervention in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycaemic control

Background The management of hyperglycaemia and associated cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may reduce diabetes-related complications. The strategy to broaden the knowledge base of primary care professionals to improve health care has mainly been prompted by the current reality of limited resources and access to specialized care. The main objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of comprehensive interventions focused on treatment intensification, decrease clinical inertia and reduce possible barriers to treatment adherence in patients with poorly controlled diabetes in a primary care setting. Methods This is a two-phase mixed method study, whose aims are the development of complex interventions and the assessment of their effectiveness. The main study outcome is a change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. The INTEGRA study is divided into two phases. Phase 1: A qualitative study with a phenomenological approach using semi-structured interviews with the objective of determining the factors related to the participants and health care professionals that influence the development and implementation of a specific intervention strategy aimed at patients with poor glycaemic control of T2DM in primary care. Phase 2: Exploratory intervention study to be conducted in Primary Health Care Centres in Catalonia (Spain), including 3 specific health care areas. The intervention study has two arms: Intervention Group 1 and 2. Each intervention group will recruit 216 participants (the same as in the control group) between the ages of 30 and 80 years with deficient glycaemic control (HbA1c > 9%). The control group will be established based on a randomized selection from the large SIDIAP (Sistema d’Informació per al desenvolupament de la Investigació en Atenció Primària) database of patients with comparable socio-demographic and clinical characteristics from the three provinces. Discussion This study is a comprehensive, pragmatic intervention based on glycaemic treatment intensification and the control of other cardiovascular risk factors. It is also aimed at improving treatment adherence and reducing clinical inertia, which could lead to improved glycaemic control and could likewise be feasible for implementation in the actual clinical practice of primary care.The study is partially supported by unrestricted grant from Sanofi. The study has also intramural support from Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol. The funder does not have any role in writing the study protocol. This funding source will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results