You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Public health
Protocol
Impact of primary health care reforms in Quebec Health Care System: a systematic literature review protocol
  1. Paolo Landa1,2,
  2. Jean-Denis Lalonde1,3,
  3. Frédéric Bergeron4,
  4. Said Abasse Kassim3,
  5. André Côté2,3,5,
  6. Jean-Baptiste Gartner2,
  7. Elena Tanfani6,
  8. Marina Resta6
  1. 1Département d’opérations et systèmes de décision, Universite Laval Faculté des sciences de l'administration, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  2. 2Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé, Centre de recherche du CHU de Quebec - Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3Départment de Management, Universite Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  4. 4Bibliothèque-Direction des services-conseils, Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  5. 5Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Quebec, Quebec, Canada
  6. 6Dipartimento di Economia, Università degli Studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paolo Landa; paolo.landa{at}fsa.ulaval.ca

Abstract

Introduction During the last decade the Quebec Public Health Care System (QPHCS) had an important transformation in primary care planning activity. The increase of the service demand together with a significant reduction of supply in primary care may be at risk of reducing access to health care services, with a negative impact on costs and health outcomes. The aims of this systematic literature review are to map and aggregate existing literature and evidence on the primary care provided in Quebec, showing the benefits and limitations associated with the health policies developed in the last two decades, and highlighting areas of improvement.

Methods and analysis PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL will be searched for articles and government reports between January 2000 and January 2022 using a prespecified search strategy. This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols and has been registered with PROSPERO. A wide range of electronic databases and grey literature sources will be systematically searched using predefined keywords. The review will include any study design, with the exclusion of protocols, with a focus on the analysis of health care policies, outcomes, costs and management of the primary health care services, published in either English or French languages. Two authors will independently screen titles, abstracts, full-text articles and select studies meeting the inclusion criteria. A customised data extraction form will be used to extract data from the included studies. Results will be presented in tabular format developed iteratively by the research team.

Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval is not required as exclusively secondary data will be used. Review findings will synthesise the characteristics and the impact of the reforms of QPHCS of the last two decades. Findings will therefore be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and through discussions with stakeholders.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023421145.

  • PRIMARY CARE
  • Health policy
  • HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
  • Organisation of health services
  • Protocols & guidelines
  • PUBLIC HEALTH
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068666

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • This systematic review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines.

    • The search algorithm was developed by an experienced librarian and customised to four large databases, including any type of grey literature.

    • The certainty of the evidence of this systematic review may be limited by the limited number of studies available and the possible low quality of the individual studies.

    • We aim to create the most comprehensive systematic review providing a comprehensive view and analysis of the primary care in Quebec Public Health are System and its impact on costs, outcomes, accessibility, equity and health organisation.

    • The systematic literature review will consider only studies published from 2000 onwards and those published in French and English languages.

    Background

    Primary health care services represent an important element in public health care systems. As reported by the WHO ‘Primary Health Care (PHC) is a whole-of-society approach to health that aims at ensuring the highest possible level of health and well-being and their equitable distribution by focusing on people’s needs and as early as possible along the continuum from health promotion and disease prevention to treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care, and as close as feasible to people’s everyday environment’.1 PHC is the most inclusive, equitable, cost-effective and efficient approach to enhance people’s physical and mental health, as well as social well-being. A strong primary health care presents lower health costs, better population health, higher patient satisfaction, fewer inappropriate and unnecessary hospital admissions, better rates of screening and early detection of chronic diseases, better patient follow-up for patients, a better management of patients with multimorbidity and finally greater socioeconomic equity.2–8

    The PHC services include the general practitioners (GP) or family physicians, who represent generally the first point of contact of individuals with the healthcare system, and focus care on the individual within the community, delivering services across the entire spectrum of care (eg, mental health, preventive medicine, respiratory diseases). They play an important role in health promotion and illness prevention, coordinating care with other specialties and health professionals and advocating on behalf of their patients with respect to the care and services they need in all parts of the health care system. The importance of GPs for patients is highlighted in the international literature.9–14 The physician’s personal commitment to the patient is one of the most important determinants of the patient’s sense of safety, and it has a large impact on the patient’s decision to consult a specialist or to access an emergency department (ED).15

    Canada has a decentralised and universal publicly funded health care system with the funding and administrations of health care primarily managed by the 13 provinces and territories and the entire country. Each province has its own insurance plan and each province receives money and assistance from the federal government on a per-capita basis. Each system is managed publicly and it is accessible to any citizen (universally). Each provincial government is responsible for the management, organisation and delivery of health care services for Canadians. The insurance plans developed by each province must meet the standards of the Canadian Health Act to access federal funds.

    Two reforms were introduced in the early 2000s (Family Medicine Group in 2003 and Bill 20 in 2015) aimed at maximising medical and financial resource use in order to improve the patient access in primary care.16 17 However, actually the accessibility to primary care for patients still represents a public health issue in Québec (online supplemental material S1). In addition, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemics, the accessibility to primary health care worsened.18 This problem was already reported previously19–22 and it still represent a challenge for the government.23 24

    The aim of this work consists in studying, through this systematic literature review, the last two decades of the Quebec Public Health Care System (QPHCS) primary care and the impact of the reforms developed on health organisation, costs, health outcomes, accessibility, equity and services, considering health care system perspective.

    Methods and analysis

    This protocol has been prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines,25 as shown in PRISMA-P checklist (online supplemental material S2). Important amendments made to the protocol will be documented and published alongside the results of the systematic review.

    Research question

    This systematic literature review will synthesise the scientific literature on interventions that have been developed in QPHCS, focusing on primary care and GPs activities, together with a collection of the evidence for assessing health outcomes, costs, equity and accessibility for Quebec adult population.

    Eligibility criteria

    The criteria for the study selection will be based on studies that will explicitly analyse the impact of any policy implementation or activity provided where GPs or family doctors are included, together with the information about corresponding health outcomes, costs, accessibility or performance on system organisation.

    Study design/characteristics

    Target studies will include meta-analysis, systematic review, randomised controlled trial, cohort study (prospective observational study), case-control study, cross-sectional study, case reports, series, quasi-experimental design, difference in difference analysis, natural experiments, regression discontinuity design that show the impact of GP activities on health outcomes, costs, accessibility, health organisation and management, services in QPHCS. We will also consider summary papers, government and public health reports and other analyses to identify relevant primary papers. Study protocols will not be considered in this systematic literature review.

    Information sources

    A research of academic databases including: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) will be performed by an author experienced in conducting systematic reviews (FB). The search will look for potentially relevant articles using predefined strategies (online supplemental material S3). A manual search of the reference lists of the studies will be performed in order to check for any additional possible relevant articles. The manual search will be based on backward snowballing search that will involve search of the reference list of the articles selected and identified. In addition, for some of the relevant journals a hand search will be performed to ensure a saturation of the literature. Grey literature will be included in order to explore all the available documentation published. Studies will be excluded if they do not investigate on QPHCS.

    Search strategy

    The search strategy (table 1) will be reviewed by the first (PL) and the second (J-DL) author, together with the supervision of the third author who is a medical librarian able to provide the support and the guidance on search terms and strategies (FB). The search strategy will combine MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and free text words such as (Primary Health Care OR Primary Care OR Primary Healthcare OR Family Physicians OR Family Practitioner OR General Practitioners OR General Practice AND Health Services Needs and Demand OR Health Services Accessibility OR Delivery of Health Care OR Health Care Reform OR Health Policy OR Appointments and Schedules OR Mass Screening/organization and administration OR Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care OR Quality Indicators, Health Care OR Waiting Lists OR Health Policy OR Healthcare Policy OR National Policy OR Healthcare Delivery OR delivery of care OR Health access OR Healthcare access OR Health Care Reform OR primary care demand OR Health demand OR care demand AND Quebec). The search strategy will have filters limiting studies to 2000 onwards, and studies published in English or French. The time limitation is chosen as by the early 2000s, the Family Medicine Groups were introduced as a new primary care model. The literature review searches will be updated at the end of the search process. In addition, using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timing and Study design strategy,26 27 we elaborated the guiding question of this review to ensure the systematic search of available literature: ‘What is the impact of last two decades of primary health care reforms for GP activities on health outcomes, costs, equity and accessibility for Quebec adult population?’.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Screening, data collection and extraction

    The abstracts and full-text articles retrieved from the search strategy will be undertaken using Covidence (www.covidence.org),28 an online systematic review tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, and duplicates will be removed. Two authors (PL and J-DL) will independently assess titles and abstracts of records, and exclude articles that will not meet eligibility criteria. Disagreements between the selected papers made by the two authors will be resolved by discussion or by a third author SAK, J-BG, AC, MR or ET). Four authors will independently extract and record data from included studies using a predefined data extraction form (PL, J-DL, J-BG and MR).

    The authors will pilot the data extraction form with a sample of a limited number of papers (10) and amendments will be made as necessary. After the evaluation of piloting, the data extraction will be developed and completed. The data extraction form will include the information reported in the online supplemental material S4. Other additional information will be included during the review process. If additional information will be required from the studies, study authors will be contacted. At the end of data extraction, four authors (PL, J-DL, J-BG and MR) will resolve any discrepancies that will be present by applying a consensus-based decision, or if necessary, discussion with a fifth author (AC).

    Data synthesis will be undertaken through a narrative approach, providing detailed written commentary on the data extracted previously. This will help in the understanding of the impact of GPs activity to the delivery of care and the related issues. In addition, summary tables will be used to present data in a structured format. We will use a convergent synthesis design to synthesise qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method results.29 Thus, using a thematic synthesis procedure, we will synthesise the evidence from the selected studies.

    Quality assessment

    Two independent authors (PL and J-DL) will assess the methodological quality of eligible studies. Two independent authors will score the selected studies and disagreements will be resolved by a third author (SAK, J-BG, AC, MR or ET). For quality assessment we will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), which is a critical appraisal tool that is designed for the appraisal stage of systematic mixed studies reviews that include qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. It enables the appraisal of five categories of methodologies such as qualitative research, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies (online supplemental material S5).30

    Cumulative evidence

    We will use the MMAT approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each study, and will present the data results on the MMAT rating tables.

    Discussion

    To our knowledge, this systematic review will be the first to synthesise the available evidence on the impact of the last two decades’ reforms on primary health care organisations in Quebec evaluating several dimensions (eg, costs, health outcomes, services accessibility, equity). The results of this review will also inform policymakers and leaders of Quebec public health. Our results may highlight gaps in knowledge and guide future research concerned with the primary health care organisation in Quebec.

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients were not directly involved in the design of this study. As this is a protocol for a systematic literature review and no participant recruitment will take place, their involvement in the recruitment and dissemination of findings to participants was not applicable.

    Ethics and dissemination

    This study does not require the ethical review as it is a systematic literature review. The objective is submitting this work and its future development to a peer-reviewed journal and presenting the main findings at Quebec government, national and international meetings and conferences.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      A vision for primary health care in the 21st century: towards universal health coverage and the sustainable development goals. World Health Organization 2018. Available https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/328065
    2. ↵
      1. Starfield B,
      2. Shi L,
      3. Macinko J
      . Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005;83:457–502. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Macinko J,
      2. Starfield B,
      3. Shi L
      . The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970-1998. Health Serv Res 2003;38:831–65. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.00149
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Adashi EY,
      2. Geiger HJ,
      3. Fine MD
      . Health care reform and primary care — the growing importance of the community health center. N Engl J Med 2010;362:2047–50. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1003729
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Wright J,
      2. Williams R,
      3. Wilkinson JR
      . Development and importance of health needs assessment. BMJ 1998;316:1310–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7140.1310
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Murante AM,
      2. Seghieri C,
      3. Vainieri M, et al
      . Patient-perceived responsiveness of primary care systems across Europe and the relationship with the health expenditure and remuneration systems of primary care doctors. Soc Sci Med 2017;186:139–47. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.005
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Stange KC,
      2. Ferrer RL
      . The paradox of primary care. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:293–9. doi:10.1370/afm.1023
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. van Weel C,
      2. Kidd MR
      . Why strengthening primary health care is essential to achieving universal health coverage. Can Med Assoc J 2018;190:E463–6.doi:10.1503/cmaj.170784
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    9. ↵
      1. Wilson T,
      2. Roland M,
      3. Ham C
      . The contribution of general practice and the general practitioner to NHS patients. J R Soc Med 2006;99:24–8. doi:10.1177/014107680609900111
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Kang M,
      2. Robards F,
      3. Luscombe G, et al
      . The relationship between having a regular general practitioner (GP) and the experience of Healthcare barriers: a cross-sectional study among young people in NSW, Australia, with Oversampling from Marginalised groups. BMC Fam Pract 2020;21:220. doi:10.1186/s12875-020-01294-8
      OpenUrlPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Hoffmann K,
      2. Stein KV,
      3. Maier M, et al
      . Access points to the different levels of health care and demographic predictors in a country without a gatekeeping system. Results of a cross-sectional study from Austria. The European Journal of Public Health 2013;23:933–9.doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckt008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Pereira Gray DJ,
      2. Sidaway-Lee K,
      3. White E, et al
      . Continuity of care with doctors-a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality. BMJ Open 2018;8:e021161. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021161
    13. ↵
      1. Philips H,
      2. Verhoeven V,
      3. Morreel S, et al
      . Information campaigns and trained Triagists may support patients in making an appropriate choice between GP and emergency Department. Eur J Gen Pract 2019;25:243–4. doi:10.1080/13814788.2019.1675630
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Henninger S,
      2. Spencer B,
      3. Pasche O
      . Deciding whether to consult the GP or an emergency Department: a qualitative study of patient reasoning in Switzerland. Eur J Gen Pract 2019;25:136–42. doi:10.1080/13814788.2019.1634688
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Henninger S,
      2. Spencer B,
      3. Pasche O
      . Importance of the GP-patient relationship. Eur J Gen Pract 2019;25:245. doi:10.1080/13814788.2019.1679469
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Gouvernement du Québec
      . 2017 le Système de Santé et de services Sociaux au Québec en Bref. In: La direction des communications du ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec. Available: https://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/msss/fichiers/2017/17-731-01WF.pdf
    17. ↵
      1. Breton M,
      2. Levesque J-F,
      3. Pineault R, et al
      . L'Implantation Du Modèle des Groupes de Médecine de famille au Québec: Potentiel et Limites pour L'Accroissement de la performance des Soins de Santé Primaires. Prat Organ Soins 2011;42:101–9. doi:10.3917/pos.422.0101
      OpenUrl
    18. ↵
      1. Breton M,
      2. Marshall EG,
      3. Deslauriers V, et al
      . COVID-19 - an opportunity to improve access to primary care through organizational innovations? A qualitative multiple case study in Quebec and Nova Scotia (Canada). BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:759. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08140-w
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      1. Gladu FP
      . Perceived shortage of family doctors in Quebec: can we do something about it?.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien 2007;53:1858–73.
    20. ↵
      1. Laberge M,
      2. Gaudreault M
      . Promoting access to family medicine in Québec, Canada: analysis of bill 20, enacted in November 2015. Health Policy 2019;123:901–5. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.08.003
      OpenUrl
    21. ↵
      1. Lee G,
      2. Quesnel-Vallée A
      . Improving access to family medicine in Québec through quotas and numerical targets. In: Health Reform Observer - Observatoire des Réformes de Santé 2019.
    22. ↵
      1. Darvesh N,
      2. McGill SC
      . Improving access to primary care. Cjht 2022;2.doi:10.51731/cjht.2022.397
    23. ↵
      1. Russel GM,
      2. Hogg W,
      3. Lemelin J
      . Organismes intégrées des soins primaires : La prochaine étape de la réforme des soins primaires. Canadian Family Physician 2010;56:87–9.
      OpenUrl
    24. ↵
      1. Bellerose P
      . 599 Jours D’Attente pour Avoir son Médecin de famille au Québec. 2021. Available: https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2021/08/02/599-jours-dattente-pour-avoir-son-medecin-de-famille-au-quebec [Accessed 13 May 2022].
    25. ↵
      1. Shamseer L,
      2. Moher D,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation BMJ. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
    26. ↵
      1. Riva JJ,
      2. Malik KMP,
      3. Burnie SJ, et al
      . What is your research question? an introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. J Can Chiropr Assoc 2012;56:167–71.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. The Cochrane collaboration
      . Chapter 5: defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews Version 501: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2008.
    28. ↵
      1. Covidence systematic review software
      . Veritas health innovation. Melbourne, Australia, Available: www.covidence.org
    29. ↵
      1. Hong QN,
      2. Gonzalez-Reyes A,
      3. Pluye P
      . Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 2018;24:459–67. doi:10.1111/jep.12884
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Hong QN,
      2. Pluye P
      . A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2019;13:446–60. doi:10.1177/1558689818770058
      OpenUrl

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Contributors PL and J-DL led the design, search strategy and conceptualisation of this work and drafted the protocol. FB performed the search strategy and provided the corresponding results. PL, J-DL, SAK, MR, ET, AC and J-BG were involved in the conceptualisation of the review design, inclusion and exclusion criteria and provided feedback on the methodology and the manuscript. PL, MR, ET, AC, J-BG and J-DL were involved in data extraction forms. All authors provided feedback on the manuscript and approval to the publishing of this protocol manuscript.

    • Funding Université Laval - Fonds de démarrage Université Laval (Canada). Soutien à la recherche (SAR) Faculté des Sciences de l'administration - Volet 1A : Démarrage nouveau professeur adjoint (DC132416).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.