Aim. To report the expectations and experiences of general practitioners and practice nurses regarding the U-CARE programme, to gain a better understanding of the barriers and facilitators in providing proactive, structured care to frail older people and to determine whether implementation is feasible. Background. Care for older patients with complex care needs in primary care is fragmented, reactive and time consuming. A structured, proactive care programme was developed to improve physical functioning and quality of life in frail older patients. Design. An explanatory mixed-methods study nested in a cluster-randomized trial. Methods. The barriers to and needs for the provision of structured, proactive care, and expectations regarding the U-CARE programme were assessed with prequestionnaires sent to all participating general practitioners (n = 32) and practice nurses (n = 21) in October 2010. Postquestionnaires measured experiences with the programme after 5 months. Twelve months later, focus group meetings were conducted. Results. Practice nurses and general practitioners reported that it was difficult to provide proactive and structured care to older patients with multi-morbidity, different cultural backgrounds and low socioeconomic status. Barriers were a lack of time and financial compensation. Most general practitioners and practice nurses indicated that the programme added value for the coordination of care and allowed them to provide structured care. Conclusion. This explanatory mixed-methods study showed that general practitioners and practice nurses perceived the U-CARE programme as feasible in general practice. A transition was made from reactive, ad hoc care towards a proactive and preventive care approach
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. This second article addresses FAQs about context, research questions and designs. Qualitative research takes into account the natural contexts in which individuals or groups function to provide an in-depth understanding of real-world problems. The research questions are generally broad and open to unexpected findings. The choice of a qualitative design primarily depends on the nature of the research problem, the research question(s) and the scientific knowledge one seeks. Ethnography, phenomenology and grounded theory are considered to represent the ‘big three’ qualitative approaches. Theory guides the researcher through the research process by providing a ‘lens’ to look at the phenomenon under study. Since qualitative researchers and the participants of their studies interact in a social process, researchers influence the research process. The first article described the key features of qualitative research, the third article will focus on sampling, data collection and analysis, while the last article focuses on trustworthiness and publishing.
Introduction: Self-management is considered a potential answer to the increasing demand for family medicine by people suffering from a chronic condition or multi-morbidity. A key element of self-management is goal setting. Goal setting is often defined as a moment of agreement between a professional and a patient. In the self-management literature, however, goal setting is regarded as a circular process. Still, it is unclear how professionals working in family medicine can put it into practice. This background paper aims to contribute to the understanding of goal setting within self-management and to identify elements that need further development for practical use. Debate: Four questions for debate emerge in this article: (1) What are self-management goals? (2) What is necessary to accomplish the process of goal setting within self-management? (3) How can professionals decide on the degree of support needed for goal setting within self-management? (4) How can patients set their goals and how can they be supported? Implications: Self-management goals can be set for different (life) domains. Using a holistic framework will help in creating an overview of patients’ goals that do not merely focus on medical issues. It is a challenge for professionals to coach their patients to think about and set their goals themselves. More insight in patients’ willingness and ability to set self-management goals is desirable. Moreover, as goal setting is a circular process, professionals need to be supported to go through this process with their patients.
