Survey to identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland during and following the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

ObjectivesTo identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland following the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignModified James Lind Alliance methodology; respondents completed an online survey to make research suggestions and rank research themes in order of priority.SettingScotland primary care.ParticipantsHealthcare professionals in primary care in Scotland and members of primary care patient and public involvement groups. 512 respondents provided research suggestions; 8% (n=40) did not work in health or social care; of those who did work, 68.8% worked in primary care, 16.3% community care, 11.7% secondary care, 4.5% third sector, 4.2% university (respondents could select multiple options). Of those respondents who identified as healthcare professionals, 33% were in nursing and midwifery professions, 25% were in allied health professions (of whom 45% were occupational therapists and 35% were physiotherapists), 20% were in the medical profession and 10% were in the pharmacy profession.Main outcomesSuggestions for research for primary care made by respondents were categorised into themes and subthemes by researchers and ranked in order of priority by respondents.ResultsThere were 1274 research suggestions which were categorised under 12 themes and 30 subthemes. The following five themes received the most suggestions for research: disease and illness (n=461 suggestions), access (n=202), workforce (n=164), multidisciplinary team (MDT; n=143) and integration (n=108). One hundred and three (20%) respondents to the survey participated in ranking the list of 12 themes in order of research priority. The five most highly ranked research priorities were disease and illness, health inequalities, access, workforce and MDTs. The disease and illness theme had the greatest number of suggestions for research and was scored the most highly in the ranking exercise. The subtheme ranked as the most important research priority in the disease and illness theme was ‘mental health’.ConclusionsThe themes and subthemes identified in this study should inform research funders so that the direction of primary healthcare is informed by evidence.

UK general practice service delivery research priorities: an adapted James Lind Alliance approach

“…We also did not include the patient voice in this study, given the small-scale nature of the project and limited resources. Existing research has suggested differences in priorities between workforce and patient groups who may be more likely to focus on access (17). By including a range of clinical and non-clinical staff groups, this research provides a greater understanding of what the workforce sees as important issues in need of further research.…”

“…Along with use of technology, these three research areas (health education, complexity of needs and interfaces with secondary care) were also identified by others as priorities (15,17,18) suggesting a need to maintain such focus. However, our study also found new themes such as volume of work, overwhelming pressure, patient behaviour and employment pay and conditions.…”

“…Ethical approval: This study received a favourable ethics review (FHMS 21-22 201 EGA). As this study was only identifying research priorities, rather than conducting research this project did not require further research ethics review (see also 17).…”

“…Whilst this research agenda was not specific to General Practice, it was one of the first to acknowledge the significance of involving the workforce in research, stating that doing so, "can contribute to resolving existing dilemmas and can provide innovatory ideas for the future" (p.62). Priority setting research exercises for primary care have been carried out in Scotland (17) and internationally (15), as well as specifically for general practice in Australia (18). The study reported herein is the first to look at UK wide general practice research priorities following COVID-19, specifically from the perspective of the clinical and non-clinical workforce.…”

Working with stakeholders to rapidly identify and prioritise COVID-19 health and social care evidence needs for evidence-informed policy and practice decision making: processes, results, and lessons from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre

“…Our engagement with a wide range of stakeholders was supported by our strong links with Government teams, who were able to help us identify key stakeholders, and brokered relationships between the WCEC and key advisors and decision-makers. Whilst there are many UK and international examples of COVID-19 priority setting exercises, these typically focus on the views of practitioners and researchers and tend to be domain or topic speci c; for example, nurses (23), psychological / mental health (24) primary care (25), maternal and child health, (26). To our knowledge, no other UK-based COVID-19 priority setting exercise explored and synthesised the priorities of multiple groups, which included policy, practice, and public domains.…”