Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31352414›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Improving access to primary healthcare for vulnerable populations in Australia and Canada: protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of six complex interventions.

Grant Russell, Marina Kunin, Mark Harris, Jean-Frédéric Levesque, Sarah Descôteaux, Catherine Scott, Virginia Lewis, Émilie Dionne, Jenny Advocat, Simone Dahrouge and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of behaviour change tools used by family doctors: a global systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Grant RussellDepartment of General Practice, Monash University, Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Marina KuninDepartment of General Practice, Monash University, Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Mark HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jean-Frédéric LevesqueCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sarah DescôteauxSt. Mary's Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Catherine ScottPolicyWise for Children & Families, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Virginia LewisAustralian Institute for Primary Care and Ageing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Émilie DionneSt. Mary's Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jenny AdvocatDepartment of General Practice, Monash University, Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Simone DahrougeC.T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Elisabeth Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nigel StocksDepartment of General Practice, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9018-0361
Catherine SpoonerCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jeannie HaggertyDepartment of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Monash University · AUMcGill University Health Centre · CAUNSW Sydney · AUAustralian Bureau of Statistics · AUÉlisabeth Bruyère Hospital · CALa Trobe University · AUMcGill University · CAThe University of Adelaide · AU

Funding

CIHR TTF-130729
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAccess to primary healthcare (PHC) has a fundamental influence on health outcomes, particularly for members of vulnerable populations. Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-Care Transformation (IMPACT) is a 5-year research programme built on community-academic partnerships. IMPACT aims to design, implement and evaluate organisational innovations to improve access to appropriate PHC for vulnerable populations. Six Local Innovation Partnerships (LIPs) in three Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia) and three Canadian provinces (Ontario, Quebec and Alberta) used a common approach to implement six different interventions. This paper describes the protocol to evaluate the processes, outcomes and scalability of these organisational innovations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The evaluation will use a convergent mixed-methods design involving longitudinal (pre and post) analysis of the six interventions. Study participants include vulnerable populations, PHC practices, their clinicians and administrative staff, service providers in other health or social service organisations, intervention staff and members of the LIP teams. Data were collected prior to and 3-6 months after the interventions and included interviews with members of the LIPs, organisational process data, document analysis and tools collecting the cost of components of the intervention. Assessment of impacts on individuals and organisations will rely on surveys and semistructured interviews (and, in some settings, direct observation) of participating patients, providers and PHC practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The IMPACT research programme received initial ethics approval from St Mary's Hospital (Montreal) SMHC #13-30. The interventions received a range of other ethics approvals across the six jurisdictions. Dissemination of the findings should generate a deeper understanding of the ways in which system-level organisational innovations can improve access to PHC for vulnerable populations and new knowledge concerning improvements in PHC delivery in health service utilisation.

Indexed as

Organizational InnovationAustraliaCanadaHealth EquityHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPrimary Health CareResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesVulnerable Populationsmixed methodsmulti siteprimary health carevulnerable populations

Identifiers

PMID31352414
PMCPMC6661687
OpenAlexW2965758385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.