| Literature DB >> 32973059 |
Kotaro Sato1, Ryoko Michinobu2, Tesshu Kusaba3.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Family physicians or general practitioners play central roles in many countries' primary care systems, but family medicine (FM) remains relatively unestablished in Japan. Previous studies in Japan have examined the general population's understanding of FM as a medical specialty, but none have explored this topic using actual FM clinic patients. Here, we describe a protocol to explore the perceptions of FM among long-term patients of one of Japan's oldest FM clinics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be conducted at the Motowanishi Family Clinic in Hokkaido, Japan, using patients who have attended the clinic for over 10 years. The analysis will adopt a two-phase explanatory sequential mixed methods design. During phase I, quantitative data from participants' medical records will be collected and reviewed, and patients' perceptions of FM will be assessed through a questionnaire. The correlations between participants' knowledge that the clinic specialises in FM and various characteristics will be examined. In phase II, qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews of approximately 10 participants selected using maximum variation sampling based on phase I results. A thematic analysis will be conducted in phase II to identify patients' perceptions and changes in perceptions. Finally, each theme identified in phase II will be transformed into a quantitative variable to analyse the relationships between the phases. A joint display will be used to integrate the phases' findings and examine how phase II results explain phase I results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board of the Japan Primary Care Association has approved this research (2019-003). The results will be presented at the association's annual academic meeting and submitted for publication in relevant journals. The findings will also be provided to the patients via the clinic's internal newsletter. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: primary care; protocols & guidelines; public health; qualitative research
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32973059 PMCID: PMC7517553 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037113
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Explanatory sequential mixed methods design of the study.
Data sources and assessment categories in phase I and phase II
| Data sources | Patient characteristics | Past clinical experiences | Present clinical experiences | Perceptions of FM | |
| Phase I | Patient questionnaire | Living alone or with others, educational attainment | Years visiting MFC, use of same physician, subjective duration of each medical consultation, knowing that MFC is a teaching clinic, family members who also visit MFC | Currently visiting other clinics and/or hospitals, transportation mode to visit MFC, Japan Primary Care Assessment Tool score | Knowing that MFC specialises in FM, impressions and attitudes towardFM |
| Review of paper-based medical records | Number of diseases over 10 years, types of diseases over 10 years | ||||
| Review of electronic medical records | Age, sex, distance from home to MFC, grade of nursing care insurance | Frequency of clinic visits, number of unscheduled visits for 10 years, types of diseases for the unscheduled visits for 10 years, number of referrals for 10 years, types of referrals for 10 years | Number of diseases, types of diseases, presence of psychological disorders, presence of social disorders | ||
| Phase II | Semistructured interview (focus group) | Reason for the first visit to MFC | Perceptions of FM, reasons for these perceptions, changes in perceptions over time |
FM, family medicine; MFC, Motowanishi Family Clinic.
Figure 2Flowchart of group categorization for phase II based on the results from phase I. Several participants will be selected from each group to take part in the semistructured interviews in phase II. 1Participants who selected options 1–7 for question 10 in the patient questionnaire (online supplemental appendix 1). 2Participants who selected options 8–9 for question 10 in the patient questionnaire (online supplemental appendix 1).