Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Alma Ata and Astana Declarations reaffirm the importance of high-quality primary healthcare (PHC), yet the capacity to undertake PHC research—a core element of high-quality PHC—in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC) is limited. Our aim is to explore the current risks or barriers to primary care research capacity building, identify the ongoing tensions that need to be resolved and offer some solutions, focusing on emerging contexts. This paper arose from a workshop held at the 2019 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting addressing research capacity building in LMICs. Five case studies (three from Africa, one from South-East Asia and one from South America) illustrate tensions and solutions to strengthening PHC research around the world. Research must be conducted in local contexts and be responsive to the needs of patients, populations and practitioners in the community. The case studies exemplify that research capacity can be strengthened at the micro (practice), meso (institutional) and macro (national policy and international collaboration) levels. Clinicians may lack coverage to enable research time; however, practice-based research is precisely the most relevant for PHC. Increasing research capacity requires local skills, training, investment in infrastructure, and support of local academics and PHC service providers to select, host and manage locally needed research, as well as to disseminate findings to impact local practice and policy. Reliance on funding from high-income countries may limit projects of higher priority in LMIC, and ‘brain drain’ may reduce available research support; however, we provide recommendations on how to deal with these tensions.

Background There is a workforce crisis in primary care. Previous research has looked at the reasons underlying recruitment and retention problems, but little research has looked at what works to improve recruitment and retention. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate interventions and strategies used to recruit and retain primary care doctors internationally. Methods A systematic review was undertaken. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and grey literature were searched from inception to January 2015. Articles assessing interventions aimed at recruiting or retaining doctors in high income countries, applicable to primary care doctors were included. No restrictions on language or year of publication. The first author screened all titles and abstracts and a second author screened 20 %. Data extraction was carried out by one author and checked by a second. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Results Fifty-one studies assessing 42 interventions were retrieved. Interventions were categorised into thirteen groups: financial incentives ( n  = 11), recruiting rural students ( n  = 6), international recruitment ( n  = 4), rural or primary care focused undergraduate placements ( n  = 3), rural or underserved postgraduate training ( n  = 3), well-being or peer support initiatives ( n  = 3), marketing ( n  = 2), mixed interventions ( n  = 5), support for professional development or research ( n  = 5), retainer schemes ( n  = 4), re-entry schemes ( n  = 1), specialised recruiters or case managers ( n  = 2) and delayed partnerships ( n  = 2). Studies were of low methodological quality with no RCTs and only 15 studies with a comparison group. Weak evidence supported the use of postgraduate placements in underserved areas, undergraduate rural placements and recruiting students to medical school from rural areas. There was mixed evidence about financial incentives. A marketing campaign was associated with lower recruitment. Conclusions This is the first systematic review of interventions to improve recruitment and retention of primary care doctors. Although the evidence base for recruiting and care doctors is weak and more high quality research is needed, this review found evidence to support undergraduate and postgraduate placements in underserved areas, and selective recruitment of medical students. Other initiatives covered may have potential to improve recruitment and retention of primary care practitioners, but their effectiveness has not been established.

[...]people around the world are cooperating to face these challenges, as Seoul Statement highlighted: “WONCA reaffirms that investment of resources in the Primary Health Care sector will achieve comprehensive personalized primary care that responds effectively to people’s health needs in every community in the world.” [...]FMCH invited professor Amanda Howe, the president of WONCA, to write this special editorial, so as to explain the background, connotation and influence of the Seoul Declaration. [...]people around the world are cooperating to face these challenges, as Seoul Statement highlighted: “WONCA reaffirms that investment of resources in the Primary Health Care sector will achieve comprehensive personalized primary care that responds effectively to people’s health needs in every community in the world.” [...]FMCH invited professor Amanda Howe, the president of WONCA, to write this special editorial, so as to explain the background, connotation and influence of the Seoul Declaration. The opportunity to pick up the theme of strengthening primary healthcare (PHC) for universal health coverage (UHC) was taken, and the opening paragraphs of the Seoul statement show this theme. The Seoul Declaration also highlights three key areas which WONCA is always championing—the need for equity in healthcare, the importance of family doctors for an effective and efficient health system, and the need for countries to invest in the primary care sector to deliver full-scope UHC. Even then, such outcomes require countries to understand what UHC and stronger PHC should actually mean in practice, to increase investment into all those aspects that can preserve health and well-being, and to prioritise the primary care sector over what is often an uncontrolled development of the hospital sector.

Background Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) or chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has been used to name a range of chronic conditions characterized by extreme fatigue and other disabling symptoms. Attempts to estimate the burden of disease have been limited by selection bias, and by lack of diagnostic biomarkers and of agreed reproducible case definitions. We estimated the prevalence and incidence of ME/CFS in three regions in England, and discussed the implications of frequency statistics and the use of different case definitions for health and social care planning and for research. Methods We compared the clinical presentation, prevalence and incidence of ME/CFS based on a sample of 143,000 individuals aged 18 to 64 years, covered by primary care services in three regions of England. Case ascertainment involved: 1) electronic search for chronic fatigue cases; 2) direct questioning of general practitioners (GPs) on cases not previously identified by the search; and 3) clinical review of identified cases according to CDC-1994, Canadian and Epidemiological Case (ECD) Definitions. This enabled the identification of cases with high validity. Results The estimated minimum prevalence rate of ME/CFS was 0.2% for cases meeting any of the study case definitions, 0.19% for the CDC-1994 definition, 0.11% for the Canadian definition and 0.03% for the ECD. The overall estimated minimal yearly incidence was 0.015%. The highest rates were found in London and the lowest in East Yorkshire. All but one of the cases conforming to the Canadian criteria also met the CDC-1994 criteria, however presented higher prevalence and severity of symptoms. Conclusions ME/CFS is not uncommon in England and represents a significant burden to patients and society. The number of people with chronic fatigue who do not meet specific criteria for ME/CFS is higher still. Both groups have high levels of need for service provision, including health and social care. We suggest combining the use of both the CDC-1994 and Canadian criteria for ascertainment of ME/CFS cases, alongside careful clinical phenotyping of study participants. This combination if used systematically will enable international comparisons, minimization of bias, and the identification and investigation of distinct sub-groups of patients with possibly distinct aetiologies and pathophysiologies, standing a better chance of translation into effective specific treatments.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI.

There is significant morbidity and mortality caused by the complications of osteoporosis, for which ageing is the greatest epidemiological risk factor. Preventive medications to delay osteoporosis are available, but little is known about motivators to adhere to these in the context of a symptomless condition with evidence based on screening results. To describe key perceptions that influence older women's adherence and persistence with prescribed medication when identified to be at a higher than average risk of fracture. A longitudinal qualitative study embedded within a multi-centre trial exploring the effectiveness of screening for prevention of fractures. Primary care, Norfolk. United Kingdom. Thirty older women aged 70-85 years of age who were offered preventive medication for osteoporosis and agreed to undertake two interviews at 6 and 24 months post-first prescription. There were no overall predictors of adherence which varied markedly over time. Participants' perceptions and motivations to persist with medication were influenced by six core themes: understanding adherence and non-adherence, motivations and self-care, appraising and prioritising risk, anticipating and managing side effects, problems of understanding, and decision making around medication. Those engaged with supportive professionals could better tolerate and overcome barriers such as side-effects. Many issues are raised following screening in a cohort of women who have not previously sought advice about their bone health. Adherence to preventive medication for osteoporosis is complex and multifaceted. Individual participant understanding, choice, risk and perceived need all interact to produce unpredictable patterns of usage and acceptability. There are clear implications for practice and health professionals should not assume adherence in any older women prescribed medication for the prevention of osteoporosis. The beliefs and motivations of participants and their healthcare providers regarding the need to establish acceptable medication regimes is key to promoting and sustaining adherence.

Background The purpose of this trial was to test if the Norfolk Diabetes Prevention Study (NDPS) lifestyle intervention, recently shown to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in high-risk groups, also improved glycaemic control in people with newly diagnosed screen-detected type 2 diabetes. Methods We screened 12,778 participants at high risk of type 2 diabetes using a fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). People with screen-detected type 2 diabetes were randomised in a parallel, three-arm, controlled trial with up to 46 months of follow-up, with a control arm (CON), a group-based lifestyle intervention of 6 core and up to 15 maintenance sessions (INT), or the same intervention with additional support from volunteers with type 2 diabetes trained to co-deliver the lifestyle intervention (INT-DPM). The pre-specified primary end point was mean HbA1c compared between groups at 12 months. Results We randomised 432 participants (CON 149; INT 142; INT-DPM 141) with a mean (SD) age of 63.5 (10.0) years, body mass index (BMI) of 32.4 (6.4) kg/m 2 , and HbA1c of 52.5 (10.2) mmol/mol. The primary outcome of mean HbA1c at 12 months (CON 48.5 (9.1) mmol/mol, INT 46.5 (8.1) mmol/mol, and INT-DPM 45.6 (6.0) mmol/mol) was significantly lower in the INT-DPM arm compared to CON (adjusted difference −2.57 mmol/mol; 95% CI −4.5, −0.6; p = 0.007) but not significantly different between the INT-DPM and INT arms (−0.55 mmol/mol; 95% CI −2.46, 1.35; p = 0.57), or INT vs CON arms (−2.14 mmol/mol; 95% CI −4.33, 0.05; p = 0.07). Subgroup analyses showed the intervention had greater effect in participants < 65 years old (difference in mean HbA1c compared to CON −4.76 mmol/mol; 95% CI −7.75, −1.78 mmol/mol) than in older participants (−0.46 mmol/mol; 95% CI −2.67, 1.75; interaction p = 0.02). This effect was most significant in the INT-DPM arm (−6.01 mmol/mol; 95% CI −9.56, −2.46 age < 65 years old and −0.22 mmol/mol; 95% CI −2.7, 2.25; aged > 65 years old; p = 0.007). The use of oral hypoglycaemic medication was associated with a significantly lower mean HbA1c but only within the INT-DPM arm compared to CON (−7.0 mmol/mol; 95% CI −11.5, −2.5; p = 0.003). Conclusion The NDPS lifestyle intervention significantly improved glycaemic control after 12 months in people with screen-detected type 2 diabetes when supported by trained peer mentors with type 2 diabetes, particularly those receiving oral hypoglycaemics and those under 65 years old. The effect size was modest, however, and not sustained at 24 months. Trial registration ISRCTN34805606 . Retrospectively registered 14.4.16

Correspondence to Professor Robert Mash; rm@sun.ac.za Primary healthcare (PHC) can be seen as a set of values and principles that guide the health system in its policy, leadership and governance, commitment to universal health coverage and primary care.1 Governance, economics and the primary care workforce are the key structural determinants of effective primary care systems.2 The African continent has 25% of the global disease burden, but only 3% of the world’s health workers and less than 1% of the world’s health expenditure.3 The burden of disease in Africa has historically been dominated by acute and infectious diseases such as malaria, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory tract infections, tuberculosis and measles. Most countries meet the WHO criteria for having a critical shortage of health workers, defined as fewer than 2.28 doctors, nurses and midwives per 1000 population.7 Health systems in many countries, such as Malawi, rely on mission hospitals, non-government organisations and external donors to fund and provide services.8 These agencies often drive vertical disease-orientated programmes, skew central planning and priorities and by offering higher salaries to health workers create an internal ‘brain drain’, where health workers move out of the public sector.9 Stories are told of patients wishing they had HIV rather than diabetes because of this inequity by disease and fragmentation of the health system. Some countries, however, such as Ghana, have introduced a national health insurance scheme with a focus on universal health coverage and community-orientated primary care (COPC).11 COPC has been defined as a ‘continuous process by which PHC is provided to a defined community on the basis of its assessed health needs, by the planned integration of primary care practice and public health’.12 Although many countries in Africa use community health workers, not many have fully integrated them into their health services along with a commitment to COPC. Brazil has been lauded as a successful example of COPC,13 and South Africa is hoping to emulate their model.14 In the Brazilian model, a PHC team that includes community health workers, nurses and a family doctor is responsible for a designated population and works at the community and household levels with a focus on health promotion and disease prevention, as well as offering facility-based primary care.13 In many countries, the health workers who form the main primary care workforce have limited training.1 In Malawi, for example, medical assistants have 2 years of training to be the main primary care provider,15 while in Rwanda, the nurses have historically been trained at the high school level.16 In other countries, such as Nigeria, Ghana and Ethiopia, clinical officers or nurses may be the main primary care provider, but again their training varies.17 Primary care providers typically have a limited range of resources, medications and clinical skills and work in poorly maintained infrastructure that is often rural or remote.

Background Diagnosis of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS is largely based on clinical history, and exclusion of identifiable causes of chronic fatigue. Characterization of cases and the impact of interventions have been limited due to clinical heterogeneity and a lack of reliable biomarkers for diagnosis and outcome measures. People with ME/CFS (PWME) often report high levels of disability, which are difficult to measure objectively. The well being of family members and those who care for PWME are also likely to be affected. This study aimed to investigate the functional status and well being of PWME and their lay carers, and to compare them with people with other chronic conditions. Methods We used a cross sectional design to study 170 people aged between 18 and 64 years with well characterized ME/CFS, and 44 carers, using SF-36 v2™. Mean physical and mental domains scores (scales and component summaries) were calculated and compared internally and externally with reference standards for the general population and for population groups with 10 chronic diseases. Results SF-36 scores in PWME were significantly reduced, especially within the physical domain (mean norm-based Physical Component Summary (PCS) score = 26.8), but also within the mental domain (mean norm-based score for Mental Component Summary (MCS) = 34.1). The lowest and highest scale scores were for \"Role-Physical\" (mean = 25.4) and \"Mental Health\" (mean = 36.7) respectively. All scores were in general lower than those for the general population and diseased-specific norms for other diseases. Carers of those with ME/CFS tended to have low scores in relation to population norms, particularly within the mental domain (mean = 45.4). Conclusions ME/CFS is disabling and has a greater impact on functional status and well being than other chronic diseases such as cancer. The emotional burden of ME/CFS is felt by lay carers as well as by people with ME/CFS. We suggest the use of generic instruments such as SF-36, in combination of other objective outcome measurements, to describe patients and assess treatments.

Background This 7 year NIHR programme [2011–2018] tests the primary hypothesis that the NDPS diet and physical activity intervention will reduce the risk of transition to type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in groups at high risk of Type 2 diabetes. The NDPS programme recognizes the need to reduce intervention costs through group delivery and the use of lay mentors with T2DM, the realities of normal primary care, and the complexity of the current glycaemic categorisation of T2DM risk. Methods NDPS identifies people at highest risk of T2DM on the databases of 135 general practices in the East of England for further screening with ab fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c]. Those with an elevated fasting plasma glucose [impaired fasting glucose or IFG] with or without an elevated HbA1c [non -diabetic hyperglycaemia; NDH] are randomised into three treatment arms: a control arm receiving no trial intervention, an arm receiving an intensive bespoke group-based diet and physical activity intervention, and an arm receiving the same intervention with enhanced support from people with T2DM trained as diabetes prevention mentors [DPM]. The primary end point is cumulative transition rates to T2DM between the two intervention groups, and between each intervention group and the control group at 46 months. Participants with screen detected T2DM are randomized into an equivalent prospective controlled trial with the same intervention and control arms with glycaemic control [HbA1c] at 46 months as the primary end point. Participants with NDH and a normal fasting plasma glucose are randomised into an equivalent prospective controlled intervention trial with follow up for 40 months. The intervention comprises six education sessions for the first 12 weeks and then up to 15 maintenance sessions until intervention end, all delivered in groups, with additional support from a DPM in one treatment arm. Discussion The NDPS programme reports in 2018 and will provide trial outcome data for a group delivered diabetes prevention intervention, supported by lay mentors with T2DM, with intervention in multiple at risk glycaemic categories, and that takes into account the realities of normal clinical practice. Trial registration ISRCTN34805606 (Retrospectively registered 16.3.16)