Drawing on the Greater Involvement of People with HIV/AIDS (GIPA) principle, the HIV/AIDS movement began to "democratize" research in Canada in the mid-1990s. To date, there is little evidence about the success of the community-based research (CBR) movement in relation to the implementation of GIPA. We draw on findings from a larger study examining barriers and facilitating factors in relation to HIV-related CBR in Ontario, Canada. An online survey was completed by 39 senior managers in Ontario AIDS service organizations (ASOs). Twenty-five in-depth, semi-structured interviews were then conducted to further explore the survey findings. Survey respondents reported that, compared to researchers and frontline service providers, people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) tended to be the least involved in all stages (input, process and outcome) of CBR projects. AIDS service organizations with a mandate that included serving rural and urban communities reported even lower levels of PLWHA involvement in CBR. Qualitative data reveal complex barriers that make meaningful PLWHA engagement in CBR difficult, including: HIV-related stigma; health-related challenges; "credentialism"; lack of capacity to engage in research; other issues taking priority; and mistrust of researchers. Facilitating factors included valuing lived experience; training and mentoring opportunities; financial compensation; trust building; and accommodating PLWHA's needs. While there is strong support for the GIPA principles in theory, practice lags far behind.

PURPOSEThe paradox of primary care is the observation that primary care is associated with apparently low levels of evidence-based care for individual diseases, but systems based on primary care have healthier populations, use fewer resources, and have less health inequality. The purpose of this article is to explore, from a complex systems perspective, mechanisms that might account for the effects of primary care beyond disease-specific care. METHODSIn an 8-session, participatory group model-building process, patient, caregiver, and primary care clinician community stakeholders worked with academic investigators to develop and refine an agent-based computer simulation model to test hypotheses about mechanisms by which features of primary care could affect health and health equity.RESULTS In the resulting model, patients are at risk for acute illness, acute lifechanging illness, chronic illness, and mental illness. Patients have changeable health behaviors and care-seeking tendencies that relate to their living in advantaged or disadvantaged neighborhoods. There are 2 types of care available to patients: primary and specialty. Primary care in the model is less effective than specialty care in treating single diseases, but it has the ability to treat multiple diseases at once. Primary care also can provide disease prevention visits, help patients improve their health behaviors, refer to specialty care, and develop relationships with patients that cause them to lower their threshold for seeking care. In a model run with primary care features turned off, primary care patients have poorer health. In a model run with all primary care features turned on, their conjoint effect leads to better population health for patients who seek primary care, with the primary care effect being particularly pronounced for patients who are disadvantaged and patients with multiple chronic conditions. Primary care leads to more total health care visits that are due to more disease prevention visits, but there are reduced illness visits among people in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Supplemental appendices provide a working version of the model and worksheets that allow readers to run their own experiments that vary model parameters. CONCLUSION This simulation model provides insights into possible mechanisms for the paradox of primary care and shows how participatory group model building can be used to evaluate hypotheses about the behavior of such complex systems as primary health care and population health. INTRODUCTIONM ultiple studies have found that primary care is associated with poorer quality care for individual diseases than is care provided by clinicians focused primarily on those diseases. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Yet, other evidence shows that systems based on primary care have better quality of care, better population health, greater equity, and lower cost. [7][8][9][10][11] This discrepancy between apparently poor disease-specific care and advantageous outcomes at the level of the whole person and system has been called t...