Developing a national primary care research network: a qualitative study of stakeholder views
Abigail Pigden
1 , Tim Stokes 1 , Sue Crengle 2 , Tony Dowell 3 , Ben Hudson 4 , Les Toop 4 , Lynn McBain 3 , Bruce Arroll 5 , Emily Gill 5 , Bryan Betty 6 , Carol Atmore 1 7 *
1 Department of General Practice and Rural Health, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
2 Ngāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
3 Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
4 Department of General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
5 Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland.
6 Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, Wellington, New Zealand.
7 WellSouth Primary Health Network, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Journal of Primary Health Care 14(4) 338-344 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC22081
Published: 28 October 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Abstract
Introduction: Primary care research is critical to address Aotearoa New Zealand’s (NZ) health sector challenges. These include health inequities, workforce issues and the need for evaluation of health system changes. Internationally, primary care data are routinely collected and used to understand these issues by primary care research and surveillance networks (PCRN). NZ currently has no such infrastructure.
Aim: To explore health sector stakeholders’ views on the utility of, and critical elements needed for, a national PCRN in NZ.
Methods: Twenty semi-structured interviews and a focus group were conducted with key stakeholders, representing different perspectives within the health sector, including Hauora Māori providers. Data were analysed thematically.
Results: Six themes were identified that included both challenges within current primary care research and ideas for a future network. The themes were: disconnection between research, practice and policy; desire for better infrastructure; improving health equity for Māori and other groups who experience inequity; responding to the research needs of communities; reciprocity between research and practice; and the need for data to allow evidence-informed decision-making. Improving health equity for Māori was identified as a critical function for a national PCRN.
Discussion: Stakeholders identified challenges in conducting primary care research and translating research into practice and policy in NZ. Stakeholders from across the health sector supported a national PCRN and identified what its function should be and how it could operate. These views were used to develop a set of recommendations to guide the development of a national PCRN.
Keywords: New Zealand, practice-based research network, PBRN, PCRN, primary care, primary care research network, qualitative research, stakeholder views.
References
[1] Health and Disability System Review 2020 – Final Report – Pūrongo Whakamutunga. Wellington: HDSR. 978-0-473-51856-1[2] Leitch S. New Zealand needs a practice based research network. J Prim Health Care 2016; 8 9–12.
| New Zealand needs a practice based research network.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[3] Green LA. Practice based primary care research networks. BMJ 2001; 322 567–8.
| Practice based primary care research networks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Hefford M, Crampton P, Foley J. Reducing health disparities through primary care reform: the New Zealand experiment. Health Policy 2005; 72 9–23.
| Reducing health disparities through primary care reform: the New Zealand experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[5] Sullivan F, Butler C, Cupples M, et al. Primary care research networks in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2007; 334 1093–4.
| Primary care research networks in the United Kingdom.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Birtwhistle R, Keshavjee K, Lambert-Lanning A, et al. Building a pan-Canadian primary care sentinel surveillance network: initial development and moving forward. J Am Board Fam Med 2009; 22 412–22.
| Building a pan-Canadian primary care sentinel surveillance network: initial development and moving forward.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Deckers JGM, Paget WJ, Schellevis FG, et al. European primary care surveillance networks: their structure and operation. Fam Pract 2006; 23 151–8.
| European primary care surveillance networks: their structure and operation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Correa A, Hinton W, McGovern A, et al. Royal college of general practitioners research and surveillance centre (RCGP RSC) sentinel network: a cohort profile. BMJ Open 2016; 6 e011092
| Royal college of general practitioners research and surveillance centre (RCGP RSC) sentinel network: a cohort profile.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[9] Koskela TH. Building a primary care research network – lessons to learn. Scand J Prim Health Care 2017; 35 229–30.
| Building a primary care research network – lessons to learn.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Green LA, Miller RS, Reed FM. Practice-Based Research Networks? 2009.
[11] ESR (Science for Communities). Influenza (flu) and other respiratory virus surveillance. Wellington, (NZ): Institute of Environmental Science and Research. Available from https://www.esr.cri.nz/our-services/consultancy/flu-surveillance-and-research/influenza-flu-and-other-respiratory-virus-surveillance/ (Accessed 14 May 2021).
[12] HealthStat. Auckland, (NZ): CBG Research (n.d.). Available at https://www.cbg.co.nz/HealthStat.html (Accessed 12 April 2021).
[13] Whanganui Regional Health Research Collaborative. Terms of Reference. Whanganui, NZ: Health Solutions Trust. Available at https://www.healthsolutionstrust.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WRHRC-Terms-of-Reference.pdf (Accessed 30 November 2021).
[14] Gale RC, Wu J, Erhardt T, et al. Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration. Implement Sci 2019; 14 11
| Comparison of rapid vs in-depth qualitative analytic methods from a process evaluation of academic detailing in the Veterans Health Administration.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 349–57.
| Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[16] Sullivan F, Hinds A, Pitkethly M, et al. Primary care research network progress in Scotland. Eur J Gen Pract 2014; 20 337–42.
| Primary care research network progress in Scotland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Thomas P, Griffiths F, Kai J, et al. Networks for research in primary health care. BMJ 2001; 322 588–90.
| Networks for research in primary health care.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Gentil ML, Cuggia M, Fiquet L, et al. Factors influencing the development of primary care data collection projects from electronic health records: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 139
| Factors influencing the development of primary care data collection projects from electronic health records: a systematic review of the literature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[19] Dania A, Nagykaldi Z, Haaranen A, et al. A review of 50-years of international literature on the internal environment of building practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med 2021; 34 762–97.
| A review of 50-years of international literature on the internal environment of building practice-based research networks (PBRNs).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[20] Canaway R, Boyle DIR, Manski-Nankervis JAE, et al. Gathering data for decisions: best practice use of primary care electronic records for research. Med J Aust 2019; 210 S12–6.
| Gathering data for decisions: best practice use of primary care electronic records for research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
