No abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this paper is to share the results of a scoping review that examined the relationship between health care disparities and the multiplicity of vulnerability factors that are often clustered together.MethodsThe conceptual framework used was an innovative dynamic model that we developed to analyze the co-existence of multiple vulnerability factors (multi-vulnerability) related to the phenomenon of the ‘Inverse Care Law’. A total of 759 candidate references were identified through a literature search, of which 23 publications were deemed relevant to our scoping review.ResultsThe review confirmed our hypothesis of a direct correlation between co-existing vulnerability factors and health care disparities. Several gaps in the literature were identified, such as a lack of research on vulnerable populations’ perception of their own vulnerability and on multimorbidity and immigrant status as aspects of vulnerability.ConclusionsFuture research addressing the revealed gaps would help foster primary care interventions that are responsive to the needs of vulnerable people and, eventually, contribute to the reduction of health care disparities in society.

Introduction: Ensuring access to timely and appropriate primary healthcare for deprived patients is an issue facing all countries, even those with universal healthcare systems. There is a paucity of information on how patients living in a context of material and social deprivation perceive barriers in the healthcare system. This study combines the perspectives of persons living in poverty and of healthcare providers to explore barriers to responsive care for underserved persons with a view to developing equity-focused primary care. Methods: In this participatory action research we used photovoice, together with a method known as 'merging of knowledge and practice' developed by ATD Fourth World, an international community organization working to eradicate poverty. The study was conducted in two teaching primary care practices in the Canadian province of Quebec. Participants consisted of 15 health professionals and six members of ATD Fourth World; approximately 60 group meetings were held. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis, in part with the involvement of persons living in poverty. Results: Three main barriers to responsive care in a context of poverty were highlighted by all participants: the difficult living conditions of people living in poverty, the poor quality of interactions between providers and underserved patients, and the complexity of healthcare system organization and functioning. Conclusion: Our research revealed that unhealthy living conditions prevent persons living in poverty from accessing quality healthcare and maintaining good health. Also, the complexity of the healthcare system's organization and functioning has a negative impact on the interactions with healthcare providers. Changes in policy and practice are needed to address those barriers and to achieve greater equity and provide more responsive care for persons living in poverty.

BackgroundWith 4.6 million patients who do not have a regular family physician, Canada performs poorly compared to other OECD countries in terms of attachment to a family physician. To address this issue, several provinces have implemented centralized waiting lists to coordinate supply and demand for attachment to a family physician. Although significant resources are invested in these centralized waiting lists, no studies have measured their performance. In this article, we present a performance assessment of centralized waiting lists for unattached patients implemented in Quebec, Canada.MethodsWe based our approach on the Balanced Scorecard method. A committee of decision-makers, managers, healthcare professionals, and researchers selected five indicators for the performance assessment of centralized waiting lists, including both process and outcome indicators. We analyzed and compared clinical-administrative data from 86 centralized waiting lists (GACOs) located in 14 regions in Quebec, from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014.ResultsDuring the study period, although over 150,000 patients were attached to a family physician, new requests resulted in a 30% median increase in patients on waiting lists. An inverse correlation of average strength was found between the rates of patients attached to a family physician and the proportion of vulnerable patients attached to a family physician meaning that as more patients became attached to an FP through GACOs, the proportion of vulnerable patients became smaller (r = −0.31, p < 0.005). The results showed very large performance variations both among GACOs of different regions and among those of a same region for all performance indicators.ConclusionsCentralized waiting lists for unattached patients in Quebec seem to be achieving their twofold objective of attaching patients to a family physician and giving priority to vulnerable patients. However, the demand for attachment seems to exceed the supply and there appears to be a tension between giving priority to vulnerable patients and attaching of a large number of patients. Results also showed heterogeneity in the performance of centralized waiting lists across Quebec. Finally, our findings suggest it is critical that similar mechanisms should use available data to identify the best strategies for reducing variations and improving performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0573-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundIn health, organizational participatory research (OPR) refers to health organization members participating in research decisions, with university researchers, throughout a study. This non-academic partner contribution to the research may take the form of consultation or co-construction. A drawback of OPR is that it requires more time from all those involved, compared to non-participatory research approaches; thus, understanding the added value of OPR, if any, is important. Thus, we sought to assess whether the OPR approach leads to benefits beyond what could be achieved through traditional research.MethodsWe identified, selected, and appraised OPR health literature, and at each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used quantitative content analysis to transform textual data into reliable numerical codes and conducted a logistic regression to test the hypothesis that a co-construction type OPR study yields extra benefits with a greater likelihood than consultation-type OPR studies.ResultsFrom 8873 abstracts and 992 full text papers, we distilled a sample of 107 OPR studies. We found no difference between the type of organization members’ participation and the likelihood of exhibiting an extra benefit. However, the likelihood of an OPR study exhibiting at least one extra benefit is quadrupled when the impetus for the study comes from the organization, rather than the university researcher(s), or the organization and the university researcher(s) together (OR = 4.11, CI = 1.12–14.01). We also defined five types of extra benefits.ConclusionsThis review describes the types of extra benefits OPR can yield and suggests these benefits may occur if the organization initiates the OPR. Further, this review exposes a need for OPR authors to more clearly describe the type of non-academic partner participation in key research decisions throughout the study. Detailed descriptions will benefit others conducting OPR and allow for a re-examination of the relationship between participation and extra benefits in future reviews.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0648-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe prevalence of comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders is high among patients with chronic diseases in primary care, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates. The detection and treatment of common mental disorders in patients with chronic diseases can be challenging in the primary care setting. This study aims to explore the perceived needs, barriers and facilitators for the delivery of mental health care for patients with coexisting common mental disorders and chronic diseases in primary care from the clinician and patient perspectives.MethodsIn this qualitative descriptive study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with clinicians (family physician, nurse, psychologist, social worker; n = 18) and patients (n = 10) from three primary care clinics in Quebec, Canada. The themes explored included clinician factors (e.g., attitudes, perception of roles, collaboration, management of clinical priorities) and patient factors (e.g., needs, preferences, access to care, communication with health professionals) associated with the delivery of care. Qualitative data analysis was conducted based on an interactive cyclical process of data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing and verification.ResultsClinician interviews highlighted a number of needs, barriers and enablers in the provision of patient services, which related to inter-professional collaboration, access to psychotherapy, polypharmacy as well as communication and coordination of services within the primary care clinic and the local network. Two specific facilitators associated with optimal mental health care were the broadening of nurses’ functions in mental health care and the active integration of consulting psychiatrists. Patients corroborated the issues raised by the clinicians, particularly in the domains of whole-person care, service accessibility and care management.ConclusionsThe results of this project will contribute to the development of quality improvement interventions to increase the uptake of organizational and clinical evidence-based practices for patients with chronic diseases and concurrent common mental disorders, in priority areas including collaborative care, access to psychotherapy and linkages with specialized mental health care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0531-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the V1SAGES case management intervention (Vulnerable Patients in Primary Care: Nurse Case Management and Self-management Support) for frequent users of health care services with chronic disease and complex care needs on psychological distress and patient activation. METHODSWe used a 2-phase sequential mixed methods design. The first phase was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with intention-to-treat analysis that measured the effects of the intervention compared with usual care on psychological distress and patient activation before and after 6 months. The second phase had a qualitative descriptive design and entailed thematic analysis of in-depth interviews (25 patients, 6 case management nurses, 9 health managers) and focus groups (8 patients' spouses, 21 family physicians) to understand stakeholders' perceived effects of the intervention on patients. RESULTSA total of 247 patients were randomized into the intervention group (n = 126) or the control group (n = 121). Compared with usual care, the intervention reduced psychological distress (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.19-0.95, P = .04), but did not have any significant effect on patient activation (P = .43). Qualitative results suggested that patients and their spouses benefitted from the case management intervention, gaining a sense of security, and stakeholders noted better patient self-management of health.CONCLUSIONS Together, our study's quantitative and qualitative results suggest that case management reduces psychological distress, making patients and caregivers feel more secure, whereas impact on self-management is unclear. Case management is a promising avenue to improve outcomes among frequent users of health care with complex needs. Ann Fam Med 2018;16:232-239. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2233. INTRODUCTIONF requent use of health care services is often driven by the complex health and social care needs of individuals having chronic physical conditions and, often, mental health comorbidities, sometimes accompanied by social vulnerability.1,2 Frequent users with chronic disease and complex care needs often experience fragmented, uncoordinated, and ineffective health care, resulting in poor health outcomes at considerable costs to the health care system. 3 Although high use may be defined from either a frequency or cost perspective, the former is more convenient and easier to measure when identifying this population in a pragmatic context. Given that primary care is a first point of contact with the health and social care system, it may play a strong role in allowing the implementation of innovations to provide more coordinated care. 4 Different interventions have been developed and evaluated to improve care for frequent users of health care services, such as case management, individualized care plans, self-management support, and information sharing. 5 Case management is the intervention most supported by evidence on improving appropriate use of health care resources, decreasing undue C...