Dataset Information

A Virtual Community of Practice to Support Physician Uptake of a Novel Abortion Practice: Mixed Methods Case Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Virtual communities of practice (VCoPs) have been used to support innovation and quality in clinical care. The drug mifepristone was introduced in Canada in 2017 for medical abortion. We created a VCoP to support implementation of mifepristone abortion practice across Canada.

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe the development and use of the Canadian Abortion Providers Support-Communauté de pratique canadienne sur l'avortement (CAPS-CPCA) VCoP and explore physicians' experience with CAPS-CPCA and their views on its value in supporting implementation.

Methods

This was a mixed methods intrinsic case study of Canadian health care providers' use and physicians' perceptions of the CAPS-CPCA VCoP during the first 2 years of a novel practice. We sampled both physicians who joined the CAPS-CPCA VCoP and those who were interested in providing the novel practice but did not join the VCoP. We designed the VCoP features to address known and discovered barriers to implementation of medication abortion in primary care. Our secure web-based platform allowed asynchronous access to information, practice resources, clinical support, discussion forums, and email notices. We collected data from the platform and through surveys of physician members as well as interviews with physician members and nonmembers. We analyzed descriptive statistics for website metrics, physicians' characteristics and practices, and their use of the VCoP. We used qualitative methods to explore the physicians' experiences and perceptions of the VCoP.

Results

From January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, a total of 430 physicians representing all provinces and territories in Canada joined the VCoP and 222 (51.6%) completed a baseline survey. Of these 222 respondents, 156 (70.3%) were family physicians, 170 (80.2%) were women, and 78 (35.1%) had no prior abortion experience. In a survey conducted 12 months after baseline, 77.9% (120/154) of the respondents stated that they had provided mifepristone abortion and 33.9% (43/127) said the VCoP had been important or very important. Logging in to the site was burdensome for some, but members valued downloadable resources such as patient information sheets, consent forms, and clinical checklists. They found email announcements helpful for keeping up to date with changing regulations. Few asked clinical questions to the VCoP experts, but physicians felt that this feature was important for isolated or rural providers. Information collected through member polls about health system barriers to implementation was used in the project's knowledge translation activities with policy makers to mitigate these barriers.

Conclusions

A VCoP developed to address known and discovered barriers to uptake of a novel medication abortion method engaged physicians from across Canada and supported some, including those with no prior abortion experience, to implement this practice.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028443.

SUBMITTER: Dunn S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9121225 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine physician factors associated with practice-level uptake of virtual mental healthcare for children and adolescents.Design, setting and participantsA population-based data linkage study of a cohort of all physicians (n=12 054) providing outpatient mental healthcare to children and adolescents (aged 3-17 years, n=303 185) in a single-payer provincial health system in Ontario, Canada from 1 July 2020 to 31 July 2021.ExposuresPhysician characteristics including gender, age, specialty, location of training, practice region, practice size and overall and mental health practice size.Main outcomesPractice-level proportion of outpatient virtual care provided: (1) mostly in-person (<25% virtual care), (2) hybrid (25%-99% virtual care) or (3) exclusively virtual (100% virtual care). Multinomial logistic regression models tested the association between practice-level virtual care provided and physician characteristics.ResultsAmong physicians, 1589 (13.2%) provided mostly in-person mental healthcare with 8714 (67.8%) providing hybrid care, and 2291 (19.0%) providing exclusively virtual care. The provision of exclusive virtual care (vs mostly in-person) was associated with female sex (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.97, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.27 (ref: male)), foreign training (aOR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.50 (ref: Canadian-trained)), family physicians (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.69 (ref: psychiatrist)) and reversely associated with large practice size (aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.40 (ref smallest quintile)). Mostly in-person care was associated with older age physicians (71+ years) and practice outside the Toronto region.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-payer universal healthcare system that remunerates physicians using the same fee structure for in-person and virtual outpatient care, there is heterogeneity in utilisation of virtual care that is associated with provider factors. This practice variation, with limited evidence on effectiveness and appropriate contexts for virtual care use, suggests there may be opportunity for further outcomes research and guidance on appropriate context for paediatric virtual mental healthcare delivery.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and concomitant governmental responses have created the need for innovative and collaborative approaches to deliver services, especially for populations that have been inequitably affected. In Alberta, Canada, two novel approaches were created in Spring 2020 to remotely support patients with complex neurological conditions and rehabilitation needs. The first approach is a telehealth service that provides wayfinding and self-management advice to Albertans with physical concerns related to existing neurological or musculoskeletal conditions or post-COVID-19 recovery needs. The second approach is a webinar series aimed at supporting self-management and social connectedness of individuals living with spinal cord injury.ObjectiveThe study aims to evaluate the short- and long-term impacts and sustainability of two virtual modalities (telehealth initiative called Rehabilitation Advice Line [RAL] and webinar series called Alberta Spinal Cord Injury Community Interactive Learning Seminars [AB-SCILS]) aimed at advancing self-management, connectedness, and rehabilitation needs during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.MethodsWe will use a mixed-methods evaluation approach. Evaluation of the approaches will include one-on-one semistructured interviews and surveys. The evaluation of the telehealth initiative will include secondary data analyses and analysis of call data using artificial intelligence. The evaluation of the webinar series will include analysis of poll questions collected during the webinars and YouTube analytics data.ResultsThe proposed study describes unique pandemic virtual modalities and our approaches to evaluating them to ensure effectiveness and sustainability. Implementing and evaluating these virtual modalities synchronously allows for the building of knowledge on the complementarity of these methods. At the time of submission, we have completed qualitative and quantitative data collection for the telehealth evaluation. For the webinar series, so far, we have distributed the evaluation survey following three webinars and have conducted five attendee interviews.ConclusionsUnderstanding the impact and sustainability of the proposed telehealth modalities is important. The results of the evaluation will provide data that can be actioned and serve to improve other telehealth modalities in the future, since health systems need this information to make decisions on resource allocation, especially in an uncertain pandemic climate. Evaluating the RAL and AB-SCILS to ensure their effectiveness demonstrates that Alberta Health Services and the health system care about ensuring the best practice even after a shift to primarily virtual care.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/28267.

Project description:BackgroundThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid shift in primary health care from predominantly in-person to high volumes of virtual care. The pandemic afforded the opportunity to conduct a deep regional examination of virtual care by family physicians in London and Middlesex County, Ontario, Canada that would inform the foundation for virtual care in our region post-pandemic.Objectives(1) to determine volumes of in-person and virtual family physicians visits and characteristics of the family physicians and patients using them during the early COVID-19 pandemic; (2) to determine how virtual visit volumes changed over the pandemic, compared to in-person; and (3) to explore family physicians' experience in virtual visit adoption and implementation.MethodsWe conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study of family physicians from March to October 2020. The quantitative component examined mean weekly number of total, in-person and virtual visits using health administrative data. Differences in outcomes according to physician and practice characteristics for pandemic periods were compared to pre-pandemic. The qualitative study employed Constructivist Grounded Theory, conducting semi-structured family physicians interviews; analyzing data iteratively using constant comparative analysis. We mapped themes from the qualitative analysis to quantitative findings.ResultsInitial volumes of patients decreased, driven by fewer in-person visits. Virtual visit volumes increased dramatically; family physicians described using telephone almost entirely. Rural family physicians reported video connectivity issues. By early second wave, total family physician visit volume returned to pre-pandemic volumes. In-person visits increased substantially; family physicians reported this happened because previously scarce personal protective equipment became available. Patients seen during the pandemic were older, sicker, and more materially deprived.ConclusionThese results can inform the future of virtual family physician care including the importance of continued virtual care compensation, the need for equitable family physician payment models, and the need to attend to equity for vulnerable patients. Given the move to virtual care was primarily a move to telephone care, the modality of care delivery that is acceptable to both family physicians and their patients must be considered.

Project description:Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people's experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified.DesignA two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people's experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams).SettingStage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.ParticipantsAnyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience.Main outcome measuresDescriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.ResultsOf those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1-54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied 'other' symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations.ConclusionsRecommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.

Project description:IntroductionGeneral practice data, particularly when combined with hospital and other health service data through data linkage, are increasingly being used for quality assurance, evaluation, health service planning and research. In this study, we explored community views on sharing general practice data for secondary purposes, including research, to establish what concerns and conditions need to be addressed in the process of developing a social licence to support such use.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach with focus groups (November-December 2021), followed by a cross-sectional survey (March-April 2022).ResultsThe participants in this study strongly supported sharing general practice data with the clinicians responsible for their care, and where there were direct benefits for individual patients. Over 90% of survey participants (N = 2604) were willing to share their general practice information to directly support their health care, that is, for the primary purpose of collection. There was less support for sharing data for secondary purposes such as research and health service planning (36% and 45% respectively in broad agreement) or for linking general practice data to data in the education, social services and criminal justice systems (30%-36%). A substantial minority of participants were unsure or could not see how benefits would arise from sharing data for secondary purposes. Participants were concerned about the potential for privacy breaches, discrimination and data misuse and they wanted greater transparency and an opportunity to consent to data release.ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that the public may be more concerned about sharing general practice data for secondary purposes than they are about sharing data collected in other settings. Sharing general practice data more broadly will require careful attention to patient and public concerns, including focusing on the factors that will sustain trust and legitimacy in general practice and GPs.Patient and public contributionMembers of the public were participants in the study. Data produced from their participation generated study findings.Clinical trial registrationNot applicable.