Telemedicine use has risen significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that the quality of care in telemedicine could be as good as in-person care, but this is likely context-dependent. Expert guidelines have declared the appropriate medical conditions, but often without empirical evidence that grapples with the fundamental information limitations facing telemedicine. We draw on the task-technology fit theory and empirical evidence around human communication to examine how the medical and social contexts affect the efficiency and clinical quality of primary care.

We will use a population-based dataset from the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) to inform a quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching (PSM). The treatment group will consist of telemedicine visits from April to December 2022. We will use PSM to create a control group of matched, in-person visits in the same period. We will then use cluster-robust linear regression to identify how specific medical conditions and social contexts are associated with higher rates of prescription, follow-up with primary care providers, emergency department visits and acute care admissions. We plan for the study to take place from 1 August 2025 to 1 August 2026.

The Research Ethics BC has granted approval for this study (H21-02244-A006). Our findings will be shared with patients, healthcare providers and policymakers and disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) and depressive symptoms (DS) are highly prevalent, burdensome, costly and comorbid health conditions. Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) was shown to improve pain and disability in patients with CLBP; however, the effect on comorbid DS remains less certain. Interestingly, CLBP and DS seem to be associated with changes in interoception, which may be reversed by OMT.

The study protocol proposes a single-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial to investigate the effect of OMT on clinical symptoms (depression, pain and disability) and interoceptive functions (interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness) in patients with CLBP and comorbid DS. A sample of 60 adult subjects with CLBP and comorbid DS shall be recruited from osteopathic, orthopaedic and physiotherapeutic practices and educational institutes for osteopathy, sports science, psychology and medicine in Hamburg, Germany. Participants will be randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive six 45 min treatment sessions of either OMT (standard-OMT group) or sham treatment imitating OMT (sham-OMT group). Primarily, symptoms of depression, pain and disability will be assessed with the Beck’s Depression Inventory, Second Edition (BDI-II), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondarily, interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness will be evaluated using the Heartbeat Tracking Task (HTT), Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) and confidence-accuracy correspondence (CAC). Ancillary, the therapeutic alliance will be investigated with the Helping Alliance Questionnaire. Data will be collected at baseline (t₀), the first, third and sixth treatment sessions (t₁, t₃, t₆) and at 3 months follow-up (t₇). The findings will be analysed for between-group differences using descriptive (mean and SD) and inductive statistics (mixed analysis of variance). It is hypothesised that standard-OMT, compared with sham-OMT, will reduce depression, pain and disability (BDI-II, NRS, ODI) and increase interoceptive accuracy, sensibility and awareness (HTT, MAIA-2, CAC) in patients with CLBP and comorbid DS.

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Medical School Hamburg (MSH-2023/288). The anonymised dataset will be published in an online repository, and the results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

DRKS00031694.

Amid growing concerns about primary care accessibility and the need to support longitudinal, community-based models of care, Canadian provinces have implemented major reforms to how family physicians are paid. These models share objectives of making longitudinal, community-based family practice more attractive and, to some degree, addressing long-standing disparities in pay between family medicine and other specialties. These new remuneration models require robust evaluation to guide improvements, future investments and planning.

We will conduct a multimethod study to explore physician perceptions and outcomes of these new models. First, we will complete semi-structured interviews with family physicians in British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia (provinces where a new blended compensation model has been introduced). Interviews will explore family physicians’ motivations for moving onto the blended compensation model; how the model has impacted their practice, administrative burden, visit length, capacity, changes to care coordination; and other areas of interest. Second, using provincial and national administrative datasets, we will assess the impact of these payment reforms on service volume, attachment/enrolment, continuity of care, and costs.

We have obtained cross-jurisdictional ethics approvals from Research Ethics British Columbia for the qualitative components and Nova Scotia Health for the quantitative components of this research. Harmonised ethics approvals have been obtained from additional institutions across all study regions. We will create summaries of findings of provincial and cross-provincial analyses and share them with relevant policymakers, physician associations and study participants. Our dissemination will also include traditional publications such as peer-reviewed articles, commentaries/editorials, and academic conferences.