Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the diversion of health resources away from routine primary care delivery. This disruption of health services has necessitated new approaches to providing care to ensure continuity. Objectives: To summarize changes to the provision of routine primary care services during the pandemic. Methods: Rapid literature review using PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane. Eligible studies were based in primary care and described practice-level changes in the provision of routine care in response to COVID-19. Relevant data addressing changes to routine primary care delivery, impact on primary care functions and challenges experienced in adjusting to new approaches to providing care, were obtained from included studies. A narrative summary was guided by Burns et al.’s framework for primary care provision in disasters. Results: Seventeen of 1,699 identified papers were included. Studies reported on telehealth use and public health measures to maintain safe access to routine primary care, including providing COVID-19 screening, and establishing dedicated care pathways for non-COVID and COVID-related issues. Acute and urgent care were prioritized, causing disruptions to chronic disease management and preventive care. Challenges included telehealth use including disparities in access and practical difficulties in assessing patients, personal protective equipment shortages, and financial solvency of medical practices. Conclusions: Substantial disruptions to routine primary care occurred due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary care practices’ rapid adaptation, often with limited resources and support, demonstrates agility and innovative capacity. Findings underscore the need for timely guidance and support from authorities to optimize the provision of comprehensive routine care during pandemics.

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Eligibility criteria for selection of studies: Randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions for adults with a body mass index ≥25 delivered in primary care compared with no treatment, attention control, or minimal intervention and weight change at ≥12 months follow-up.Data sources: Trials from a previous systematic review were extracted and the search completed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, and PsychINFO from 1 January 2018 to 19 August 2021.Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted with random effects models, and a pooled mean difference for both weight (kg) and waist circumference (cm) were calculated.Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was weight change from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcome was weight change from baseline to ≥24 months. Change in waist circumference was assessed at 12 months.Results: 34 trials were included: 14 were additional, from a previous review. 27 trials (n=8000) were included in the primary outcome of weight change at 12 month follow-up. The mean difference between the intervention and comparator groups at 12 months was −2.3 kg (95% confidence interval −3.0 to −1.6 kg, I²=88%, P<0.001), favouring the intervention group. At ≥24 months (13 trials, n=5011) the mean difference in weight change was −1.8 kg (−2.8 to −0.8 kg, I²=88%, P<0.001) favouring the intervention. The mean difference in waist circumference (18 trials, n=5288) was −2.5 cm (−3.2 to −1.8 cm, I²=69%, P<0.001) in favour of the intervention at 12 months.Conclusions: Behavioural weight management interventions for adults with obesity delivered in primary care are effective for weight loss and could be offered to members of the public.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021275529.

Participant recruitment for qualitative research often offers incentives (honoraria; financial compensation) to increase participation and to recognise lived expertise and time involved in research. While not necessarily a new concern for survey and other quantitative based research, 'spam', 'bot', and other inauthentic forms of research participation has rarely been an apparent issue for qualitative research, given it often involves levels of interaction with potential participants prior to the conduct of in-depth interviews and other methods of data generation. This is no longer the case. A troubling new occurrence has meant that recruitment calls for qualitative research with incentives on public-facing social media have attracted 'imposter' expressions of interest and research participation. In this commentary, we explore this challenge that goes beyond research integrity. In particular, we consider the risks of employing strategies to screen for legitimate participants and the importance of building trust and maintaining community engagement.

Objectives We aimed to identify the core elements of centredness in healthcare literature. Our overall research question is: How has centredness been represented within the health literature published between 1990 and 2019? Methods A scoping review across five databases (Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus; August 2019) to identify all peer-reviewed literature published since 1990 that focused on the concept of centredness in any healthcare discipline or setting. Screening occurred in duplicate by a multidisciplinary, multinational team. The team met regularly to iteratively develop and refine a coding template that was used in analysis and discuss the interpretations of centredness reported in the literature. Results A total of 23 006 title and abstracts, and 499 full-text articles were screened. A total of 159 articles were included in the review. Most articles were from the USA, and nursing was the disciplinary perspective most represented. We identified nine elements of centredness: Sharing power; Sharing responsibility; Therapeutic relationship/bond/alliance; Patient as a person; Biopsychosocial; Provider as a person; Co-ordinated care; Access; Continuity of care. There was little variation in the concept of centredness no matter the preceding word (eg, patient-/person-/client-), healthcare setting or disciplinary lens. Improving health outcomes was the most common justification for pursuing centredness as a concept, and respect was the predominant driving value of the research efforts. The patient perspective was rarely included in the papers (15% of papers). Conclusions Centredness is consistently conceptualised, regardless of the preceding word, disciplinary lens or nation of origin. Further research should focus on centring the patient perspective and prioritise research that considers more diverse cultural perspectives.

Objectives Internationally, general practitioners (GPs) are being encouraged to take an active role in the care of their patients with obesity, but as yet there are few tools for them to implement within their clinics. This study assessed the self-efficacy and confidence of GPs before and after implementing a weight management programme in their practice. Design Nested mixed methods study within a 6-month feasibility trial. Setting 4 urban general practices and 1 rural general practice in Australia. Participants All vocationally registered GPs in the local region were eligible and invited to participate; 12 GPs were recruited and 11 completed the study. Interventions The Change Programme is a structured GP-delivered weight management programme that uses the therapeutic relationship between the patient and their GP to provide holistic and person-centred care. It is an evidence-based programme founded on Australian guidelines for the management of obesity in primary care. Primary outcome measures Self-efficacy and confidence of the GPs when managing obesity was measured using a quantitative survey consisting of Likert scales in conjunction with pro forma interviews. Results In line with social cognitive theory, GPs who experienced performance mastery during the pilot intervention had an increase in their confidence and self-efficacy. In particular, confidence in assisting and arranging care for patients was improved as demonstrated in the survey and supported by the qualitative data. Most importantly from the qualitative data, GPs described changing their usual practice and felt more confident to discuss obesity with all of their patients. Conclusions A structured management tool for obesity care in general practice can improve GP confidence and self-efficacy in managing obesity. Enhancing GP ‘professional self-efficacy’ is the first step to improving obesity management within general practice. Trial registration number ACTRN12614001192673; Results.