Wozniak Lisa A, Soprovich Allison, Rees Sandra, Johnson Steven T, Majumdar Sumit R, Johnson Jeffrey A
2-040 Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2G3, Canada.
Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Athabasca, AB, Canada.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 29;16:316. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1577-1.
Primary care reforms should be supported by high-quality evidence across the entire life cycle of research. Front-line healthcare providers play an increasing role in implementation research. We recently evaluated two interventions for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in partnership with four Primary Care Networks (PCNs) in Alberta, Canada. Here, we report healthcare professionals perspectives on participating in primary care implementation research.
Guided by the RE-AIM framework, we collected qualitative data before, during, and after both interventions. We conducted 34 in-person or telephone interviews with 17 individual PCN professionals. We used content analysis to identify emerging codes and concepts.
Two major themes emerged from the data. First, healthcare managers were eager to conduct implementation research in a primary care setting. Second, regardless of willingness to conduct research, there were challenges to implementing experimental study designs for both interventions. PCN professionals presumed the interventions were better than usual care, expressed role conflict, and reported administrative burdens related to research participation. Perceptions of patient vulnerability and an obligation to intervene exacerbated these issues.
Healthcare professionals with limited practical research experience might not foresee the challenges in implementing experimental study designs in primary care settings to generate high-quality evidence. These issues are intensified when healthcare professionals perceive target patient populations as vulnerable and in need of intervention based on the presenting illness. Possible solutions include further research training, involving healthcare professionals in study design development, and using non-clinical staff to conduct research activities, particularly among acutely unwell patient populations.
初级保健改革应以研究全生命周期的高质量证据为支撑。一线医疗服务提供者在实施研究中发挥着越来越重要的作用。我们最近与加拿大艾伯塔省的四个初级保健网络(PCN)合作,对2型糖尿病(T2D)患者的两种干预措施进行了评估。在此,我们报告医疗保健专业人员对参与初级保健实施研究的看法。
在RE-AIM框架的指导下,我们在两种干预措施实施前、实施期间和实施后收集了定性数据。我们对17名PCN专业人员进行了34次面对面或电话访谈。我们使用内容分析来识别新出现的代码和概念。
数据中出现了两个主要主题。首先,医疗保健管理人员渴望在初级保健环境中开展实施研究。其次,无论开展研究的意愿如何,两种干预措施在实施实验性研究设计方面都存在挑战。PCN专业人员认为这些干预措施优于常规护理,表达了角色冲突,并报告了与参与研究相关的行政负担。对患者易受伤害性的认知以及进行干预的义务加剧了这些问题。
实践研究经验有限的医疗保健专业人员可能无法预见在初级保健环境中实施实验性研究设计以产生高质量证据时所面临的挑战。当医疗保健专业人员基于所呈现的疾病将目标患者群体视为易受伤害且需要干预时,这些问题会更加突出。可能的解决方案包括进一步的研究培训,让医疗保健专业人员参与研究设计的制定,以及利用非临床工作人员开展研究活动,特别是在急性病患者群体中。