BackgroundWhile some research has been conducted examining recruitment methods to engage physicians and practices in primary care research, further research is needed on recruitment methodology as it remains a recurrent challenge and plays a crucial role in primary care research. This paper reviews recruitment strategies, common challenges, and innovative practices from five recent primary care health services research studies in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe used mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to gather data from investigators and/or project staff from five research teams. Team members were interviewed and asked to fill out a brief survey on recruitment methods, results, and challenges encountered during a recent or ongoing project involving primary care practices or physicians. Data analysis included qualitative analysis of interview notes and descriptive statistics generated for each study.ResultsRecruitment rates varied markedly across the projects despite similar initial strategies. Common challenges and creative solutions were reported by many of the research teams, including building a sampling frame, developing front-office rapport, adapting recruitment strategies, promoting buy-in and interest in the research question, and training a staff recruiter.ConclusionsInvestigators must continue to find effective ways of reaching and involving diverse and representative samples of primary care providers and practices by building personal connections with, and buy-in from, potential participants. Flexible recruitment strategies and an understanding of the needs and interests of potential participants may also facilitate recruitment.

No abstract

The SQ with shortened prognostication periods may be useful in nursing homes and provides a mechanism to facilitate discussions on palliative care. However, a better understanding of palliative care and increasing staff's comfort with prognostication is essential to a palliative care approach.

BackgroundTraditional reporting of research outcomes and impacts, which tends to focus on research product publications and grant success, does not capture the value, some contributions, or the complexity of research projects. The purpose of this study was to understand the contributions of five systems-level research projects as they were unfolding at the Bruyère Centre for Learning, Research and Innovation (CLRI) in long-term care (LTC) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The research questions were, (1) How are partnerships with research end-users (policymakers, administrators and other public/private organisations) characterised? (2) How have interactions with the CLRI Management Committee and Steering Committee influenced the development of research products? (3) In what way have other activities, processes, unlinked actors or organisations been influenced by the research project activities?MethodsThe study was guided by Kok and Schuit’s concept of research impacts, using a multiple case study design. Data were collected through focus groups and interviews with research teams, a management and a steering committee, research user partners, and unlinked actors. Documents were collected and analysed for contextual background.ResultsCross-case analysis revealed four major themes: (1) Benefits and Perceived Tensions: Working with Partners; (2) Speaking with the LTC Community: Interactions with the CLRI Steering Committee; (3) The Knowledge Broker: Interactions with the Management Committee; and (4) All Forms of Research Contributions.ConclusionsMost contributions were focused on interactions with networks and stimulating important conversations in the province about LTC issues. These contributions were well-supported by the Steering and Management Committees’ research-to-action platform, which can be seen as a type of knowledge brokering model. It was also clear that researcher-user partnerships were beneficial and important.

Ontario has eight designated Specialized Units (SUs) located in Long-Term Care (LTC) homes. Each unit serves a well-defined group of residents whose needs go beyond what regular LTC homes can offer but do not require the complexity and range of care provided in hospitals. An applied qualitative research project looked at the realities of designated SUs, explored their role in health system capacity planning, and created a tool kit to help stakeholders navigate the designation process. Results outline the benefits and challenges experienced by the existing SUs that provide care to clients with severe responsive behaviours or dialysis needs and the units' potential to address current and future healthcare system gaps. More systematic data collection, robust evaluations, and cost-benefit analyses are needed to fully understand how effectively and efficiently the SUs fulfill the outcomes desired by residents and their families, as well as how they contribute to health system efficiencies.