BackgroundThe implementation of guidelines and training initiatives to support communication in cross-cultural primary care consultations is ad hoc across a range of international settings with negative consequences particularly for migrants. This situation reflects a well-documented translational gap between evidence and practice and is part of the wider problem of implementing guidelines and the broader range of professional educational and quality interventions in routine practice. In this paper, we describe our use of a contemporary social theory, Normalization Process Theory and participatory research methodology—Participatory Learning and Action—to investigate and support implementation of such guidelines and training initiatives in routine practice.MethodsThis is a qualitative case study, using multiple primary care sites across Europe. Purposive and maximum variation sampling approaches will be used to identify and recruit stakeholders—migrant service users, general practitioners, primary care nurses, practice managers and administrative staff, interpreters, cultural mediators, service planners, and policy makers. We are conducting a mapping exercise to identify relevant guidelines and training initiatives. We will then initiate a PLA-brokered dialogue with stakeholders around Normalization Process Theory’s four constructs—coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring. Through this, we will enable stakeholders in each setting to select a single guideline or training initiative for implementation in their local setting. We will prospectively investigate and support the implementation journeys for the five selected interventions. Data will be generated using a Participatory Learning and Action approach to interviews and focus groups. Data analysis will follow the principles of thematic analysis, will occur in iterative cycles throughout the project and will involve participatory co-analysis with key stakeholders to enhance the authenticity and veracity of findings.DiscussionThis research employs a unique combination of Normalization Process Theory and Participatory Learning and Action, which will provide a novel approach to the analysis of implementation journeys. The findings will advance knowledge in the field of implementation science because we are using and testing theoretical and methodological approaches so that we can critically appraise their scope to mediate barriers and improve the implementation processes.

No abstract

UM had less consultations with their GP, and in these consultations, less mental health problems were registered. UM were referred less to psychologists but more often to psychiatrists. GPs are advised to explore and register mental health problems more actively in UM.

BackgroundDespite considerable attention currently being given to facilitating the use of research results in public health practice, several concerns remain, resulting in the so-called know-do gap. This article aims to identify the key tensions causing the know-do gap from a broad perspective by using a systemic approach and considering the public health sector as an innovation system.MethodsAn exploratory qualitative design including in-depth semi-structured interviews was used, with 33 interviewees from different actor categories in the Dutch public health innovation system. The analyses employed an innovation system matrix to highlight the principal tensions causing the know-do gap.ResultsSeven key tensions were identified, including: research priorities determined by powerful players; no consensus about criteria for knowledge quality; different perceptions about the knowledge broker role; competition engendering fragmentation; thematic funding engendering fragmentation; predominance of passive knowledge sharing; and lack of capacity among users to use and influence research.ConclusionsThe identified tensions indicate that bridging the know-do gap requires much more than linking research to practice or translating knowledge. An innovation system perspective is crucial in providing information on the total picture of knowledge exchange within the Dutch public health sector. Such a system includes broader stakeholder involvement as well as the creation of social, economic, and contextual conditions (achieving shared visions, building networks, institutional change, removing financial and infrastructural barriers), as these create conducive factors at several system levels and induce knowledge co-creation and innovation.

Objective. To explore the views and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) in relation to recognition, recording, and treatment of mental health problems of undocumented migrants (UMs), and to gain insight in the reasons for under-registration of mental health problems in the electronic medical records. Design. Qualitative study design with semi-structured interviews using a topic guide. Subjects and setting. Sixteen GPs in the Netherlands with clinical expertise in the care of UMs. Results. GPs recognized many mental health problems in UMs. Barriers that prevented them from recording these problems and from delivering appropriate care were their low consultation rates, physical presentation of mental health problems, high number of other problems, the UM’s lack of trust towards health care professionals, and cultural differences in health beliefs and language barriers. Referrals to mental health care organizations were often seen as problematic by GPs. To overcome these barriers, GPs provided personalized care as far as possible, referred to other primary care professionals such as social workers or mental health care nurses in their practice, and were a little less restrictive in prescribing psychotropics than guidelines recommended. Conclusions. GPs experienced a variety of barriers in engaging with UMs when identifying or suspecting mental health problems. This explains why there is a gap between the high recognition of mental health problems and the low recording of these problems in general practice files. It is recommended that GPs address mental health problems more actively, strive for continuity of care in order to gain trust of the UMs, and look for opportunities to provide mental care that is accessible and acceptable for UMs.