Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Rural Family Medicine Clinicians' Motivations to Participate in a Pragmatic Obesity Trial

Joanna Veazey Brooks, Kim S. Kimminau, Stacy McCrea-Robertson and Christie Befort
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine September 2020, 33 (5) 736-744; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200083
Joanna Veazey Brooks
From the Department of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City (JVB, SM-R, CB); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City Kansas City (KSK).
PhD, MBE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim S. Kimminau
From the Department of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City (JVB, SM-R, CB); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City Kansas City (KSK).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stacy McCrea-Robertson
From the Department of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City (JVB, SM-R, CB); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City Kansas City (KSK).
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christie Befort
From the Department of Population Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City (JVB, SM-R, CB); Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City Kansas City (KSK).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: To understand the motivations of rural-practicing primary care clinicians who participate in an intensive multiyear pragmatic randomized behavioral obesity intervention trial, Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (RE-POWER).

Methods: Structured interviews were conducted with 21 family medicine clinicians who were study leads at participating rural practices. Themes emerged through an analysis of transcripts and interview notes by using the constant comparative method.

Results: The analysis revealed 3 main themes. First, primary care clinicians participated in RE-POWER because it provided a concrete plan to address their recurring clinical care need for effective obesity treatment and management. Second, participation offered help to frustrated physicians who felt a deep professional duty to care for all their patients' problems but were dissatisfied with current obesity management. Third, participation was also attractive to rural primary care clinicians because it provided a visible and sustainable way to demonstrate their commitment to improving the health of patients and the broader community.

Conclusions: Our findings show that clinicians are motivated to try solutions for a clinical problem—in this case obesity—when that clinical problem is also closely connected to a particularly frustrating area of clinical care that challenges their professional identity. Our data suggest that a motivation to close the gap between ideal and real practice can become such a high priority that clinicians are sometimes willing to try potential solutions, such as engagement in research, that they otherwise would not consider.

  • Behavior Therapy
  • Family Physicians
  • Motivation
  • Obesity
  • Obesity Management
  • Practice-Based Research
  • Qualitative Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Rural Health
  • Weight Loss

Introduction

Rural residents comprise about 20% of the United States' population and are impacted disproportionately by obesity and obesity-related illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease.1⇓⇓–4 They face a number of obstacles managing their weight, including inadequate availability of evidence-based commercial weight control programs and limited access to built environments conducive to physical activity.5⇓–7 Because many rural residents receive most of their health care from a primary care clinician, an opportunity exists to help these clinicians improve delivery of obesity treatment for this underserved population.7,8

Despite guidelines on screening and treatment,9 most patients with obesity do not receive sufficient counseling to achieve weight loss.10,11 Prior research shows a gap between physician and patient perspectives on weight loss counseling, perceived health impact of weight, motivation to lose weight, and perceived barriers to weight loss.12⇓–14 In addition, physicians can feel unenthusiastic about weight management for a variety of reasons, including lack of time to devote to counseling, lack of evidence-based treatment options, and a perception that it is not their responsibility as the physician.15⇓–17

For primary care physicians that practice in rural areas, these frustrations may be particularly acute. A close overlap exists between professional and personal roles in rural communities because patients are neighbors and friends. These individuals are more likely to share a number of attributes with their patients, including a rural upbringing, resilience under adverse circumstances, and a strong sense of place.18⇓–20 Feelings of frustration or inadequacy about managing obesity may impact a physician as they interact with patients outside the clinic.

Because where someone lives impacts their risk for obesity, many rural settings offer residents only limited resources to maintain healthy lifestyles. These environments can be characterized by individual and family isolation, substantial travel distances to needed resources, and financial constraints.21,22 The pattern of greater obesity associated with rurality is related to less availability of healthy food, limited public infrastructure open for physical activity (ie, school facilities), fewer safe streets and roads for walking or bicycling, and a lack of outdoor public recreation facilities in community planning.23 Distance between Midwestern households is a by-product of farming practices and exacerbated by farm consolidation. However, rural residents often maintain social cohesion through food shared within and among families24 and at events such as church gatherings that serve as crucial features of the social environment.25,26

From a clinical perspective, rural primary care practices have fewer referral resources to treat obese patients than their more urban counterparts (ie, registered dietitians, community exercise programs, and facilities), which contributes to limited treatment of obesity.27 To improve these deficits, effective models responsive to rural social and environmental constraints are needed, and generating that evidence depends on the participation of rural primary care physicians.

Previous studies have identified numerous obstacles to participation in research for primary care providers, including a perceived lack of time, inadequate staff, and disrupted “flow.”28⇓–30 Although previous work had demonstrated primary care's engagement in research,31,32 only a few have focused on research engagement for rural physicians specifically.33,34 Due to a lack of published studies, however, it is unclear how the perceived salience of the clinical topic may impact rural physicians' motivations to participate in research that involves adopting a new behavioral intervention for patients. A rural weight loss study in the Midwestern United States provided a venue to understand rural-practicing clinicians' key motivations to participate in an intensive pragmatic clinical trial.

Methods

Study Context

Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (RE-POWER) is a 5-year multisite cluster randomized pragmatic trial designed to test 3 modes of care delivery for obesity treatment in the rural primary care setting: individual face-to-face counseling (reimbursable under current Medicare guidelines), in-person group visits, and telephone-delivered group visits.35 Intervention for each patient lasted 2 years, and frequency and duration of counseling were weekly to monthly over the course of the 2 years.

Clinicians and trained local practice staff among 36 practice sites helped refer patients for enrollment in the trial via provision of patient lists for mailings and in-office referrals. They performed all consenting and data collection activities (baseline and 6-, 18-, and 24-month visits). In 2 of the 3 arms, practice staff were responsible for providing the in-person counseling interventions. For the third arm, the study team staff at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute awardee institution performed the counseling via telephone. Onboarding of the practices included 1 to 2 site visits followed by a study training session conducted at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute awardee institution, which included continuing education on obesity treatment guidelines and training on study protocols. The family medicine clinician interviewees in this article had limited prior research experience, and most exposure was in the form of quality improvement projects. A median of 40 patients were enrolled at each site (range, 34 to 44). Practices were paid a monthly participation fee during their 3-year study participation period and were reimbursed for data collection visits and completed counseling visits.

Thirty-six rural primary care practices were randomized to 1 of the 3 study arms and 1,432 patients enrolled. Data collection occurred from February 2016 (first patient enrolled cohort 1) to December 2019 (final 24 month visit for cohort 3). Practices were recruited via referrals from research and primary care practice colleagues and from outreach at state-wide professional meetings. Practice recruitment brochures, 1-page study summaries, and a link to the study website were distributed to interested parties identified through all avenues. The central study team followed up with interested practices by telephone and e-mail correspondence, providing more detailed information about the project and assessing continued interest. Subsequently, Site visits were made to each interested site to review study staffing, work and administrative requirements, payment structure, and timeline. Site agreements with each practice confirmed a commitment to participate in the study and preceded treatment arm randomization assignment by the study team before onboarding for the study. Thus, all sites agreed to randomization and were prepared to implement the intervention locally.

This article reports on interviews conducted with 21 family medicine clinicians who were lead study clinicians and primary decision-makers at the 21 practices recruited by the lead academic organization. This sampling strategy to interview a subset of 21/26 clinicians at the practices affiliated with our academic medical center leveraged the team's local connections and familiarity with sites from prior collaborations to increase the feasibility of a deeper, qualitative investigation. The authors varied in their roles in and level of association with the trial (principal investigator, coinvestigator, study coordinator, and qualitative analyst), which increased objectivity of analysis due to the multiplicity of perspectives. The entire study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas Medical Center.

Data Collection and Analysis

Structured interviews were completed with lead clinicians via telephone by 1 coinvestigator (KK) trained in qualitative methods. Interviews were conducted early in the study, during the time of trainings and initiation of patient enrollment. Most (17/21) interviews were completed either before patient enrollment or within the first month of patient enrollment; 4 were completed later due to logistic and scheduling constraints. The interview guide focused on key constructs that are influential in the uptake and implementation of interventions, as described by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.36 For example, questions addressed perceptions of the intervention (design quality, evidence strength, and relative advantage compared with available alternatives) and aspects of the local climate as a key “inner setting” factor (tension for change, compatibility with overall approach to improving patient care, and relative priority compared with other changes) (see Appendix). Interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes. Detailed notes were taken during the interview using a form with fields that corresponded to the questions in the interview guide as well a field to capture interviewer notes completed after the conclusion of the interview that might inform analysis. A subset of 7 interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed due to a delay in the setup of the project's secure recording software.

Three coders (SM-R with 2 research assistants) independently reviewed transcripts and interviewer notes to establish preliminary themes. Using grounded theory37 and the constant comparative method,38 themes emerged through multiple rounds of coding. After initial coding of a subset of the data, a codebook was collaboratively developed and then coders returned to the data to complete coding. The coding process consists of naming and categorizing data.39,40 Coding is defined as the analytic process through which “data are fractured, conceptualized, and integrated to form theory.”41 Coding aims to recognize and relate various features of the qualitative data into related concepts that then can be linked across interviews to serve as building blocks of understanding and eventually theory. Through discussion, we moved from initial first-order codes to the second-order themes we present in this article. For example, initial codes from the data indicated long-term benefits that clinicians perceived RE-POWER would have for their community and clinic (eg, helping improve the patient experience or build infrastructure to address obesity). These examples were discussed together and through analysis moved to thesecond-order theme of Sustainable Value for Communities that we report here.42

Questions and disagreements about coding were resolved through team discussion and with input from 2 additional coinvestigators (JVB and CB) who reviewed preliminary coding and illustrative quotes. These meetings served as a form of peer debriefing and as a way to address discrepancies from a team science perspective.43,44 Meeting notes about analysis decisions provided an audit trail of the process.45

Results

Participating Clinic and Lead Clinician Characteristics

The 21 participating clinics were located across 18 rural counties in Kansas and 1 county in Iowa. The smallest community represented had a population less than 1,000 and the largest approximately 50,000. Additional practice characteristics are described in Table 1. The lead study clinician was a MD or DO at 19 sites and a certified physician assistant at 2 sites; all were family medicine clinicians and actively engaged in patient care. Fifty-seven percent were female, and median years in practice was 15 (range, 1 to 43 years).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Characteristics of Participating Practices and Clinician Staffing Levels (n = 21)

Qualitative analysis revealed 3 main themes that describe clinicians' motivations for participating in RE-POWER: (1) need for clinical support for patients with obesity, (2) alignment of professional identity and patient care, and (3) sustainable community value beyond the duration of the trial.

Need for Clinical Support for Obesity Management in an Environment with Limited Resources

Clinicians acknowledged the need for and challenge of obesity management. Most of the interviewees explained what a “huge” and “pervasive” problem obesity is for their rural patients: We have as much problem with the obesity epidemic as anywhere else in rural areas. I think there is limited access to good proven weight loss methods. [practice G]

Our community had done a community needs assessment here back a couple of times, and of course, the number one issue in our community needs assessment is obesity, obesity treatment and we had not had in our mind a good plan on how to treat obesity that worked well. [practice U]

Some respondents referred to obesity as an “epidemic” and many explained that rural residents have minimal weight loss resources and encounter environmental obstacles to exercise. The very first gym had recently opened in 1 community, and in others the closest exercise facilities were 20 to 30 miles away. One clinician explained that the lack of affordable indoor facilities to exercise was especially problematic in the winter: Probably like most places who are in the study in rural America we don't have a lot of great resources in our community. And the limited resources that we do have, how do I put this- cost people money and people aren't willing to spend a lot of money for their obesity unless they're really motivated. [practice N]

Given the well-understood problem of obesity coupled with the limited resources for patients, clinicians across practices explained that RE-POWER came at a time when they were already actively looking for a solution.

I'm always looking for ways to help obese patients lose weight; there's not very much out there that helps. [practice I]

I think all of us are looking for something that works. [practice G]

RE-POWER's perceived clinical relevance to a significant need in their practices was a common motivator for participation.

Alignment of Professional Identity and Patient Care

Clinicians discussed how participating in RE-POWER helped them improve alignment between their professional sense of responsibility and their actual practice. As family medicine clinicians, they were frustrated with their inability to effectively manage obesity, citing a number of known barriers, like lack of time: There are a lot of patients that of course come in…frustrated with weight loss…so much to cover in a 15-30 minute visit. We enjoy doing that counseling, but hate doing that counseling because we feel like 1)we are ill-equipped, or 2)we just don't have the time necessary really, to dive into it. [practice F]

It's very difficult […] in a ten-minute office visit to really get an effective treatment for it so I was interested in other ways to do it effectively. [practice U]

One lead clinician had the needed knowledge but not enough time or energy to consistently use her skills in practice (practice H). Other clinicians talked specifically about how competing priorities for their time kept them from effectively managing obesity: I think if we had opportunity and time it would be nice to do that here but we just can't seem to make time for taking care of something that's not going to kill them right now. [practice G]

Struggling to find time to address obesity also proved to be challenging to clinicians' professional identities, which were rooted in family medicine's core values of providing holistic, contextualized, and continuous care.46⇓⇓–49

I think as providers even though we are Family Medicine and we try to be all things to all people, we understand that we can't do everything, especially in the changing health care environment. Learning what we can and can't do well is important. […] it's very complex and it's not a one size fits all approach. So, it's more just an appreciation, an understanding that we can't do this on our own… [practice F]

For these clinicians, this gap between patient need and what they could offer was difficult. Two clinicians embraced RE-POWER as an opportunity to “help my patients and learn how this is done in a better way” and to “gain more tools to help people as we conquer this every day” (practice B, practice T). Given the level of frustration around obesity management, clinicians saw RE-POWER as having the potential to provide improved alignment with their professional identity in family medicine by helping them bridge the divide between patient need and their care.

In fact, RE-POWER's appeal as an approach to close the gap between ideal and real practice was strong enough to change physician's stance about research participation: The interesting thing is I get some online surveys and it was less than a week prior to getting the request, I got an online surveying about participating in research trials and I'm not much of a research type person and I answered that whole survey about no I don't want to do this, no I really don't care to. And then I got the RE-POWER study and I thought man, I have to go back on everything I said in that survey. [practice N]

For this physician, the desire for improved alignment between his professional responsibility tohis patients and the care he could provide for patients with obesity motivated participation in RE-POWER, even despite his strong reservations about research participation.

Sustainable Value for Communities

Clinicians described participation in RE-POWER as a means to benefit their local rural community. For some, this broader benefit stemmed from obesity's connection to other health problems. One respondent shared that obesity was “at the root of a lot of problems” and believed that improving obesity care could have “ripple effects” for overall health (practice D). Another said she believed participation in the study was important because it was a way to build infrastructure to address obesity in her community (practice H). Another clinician explained that participating in RE-POWER contributed to a fundamental shift in how his practice viewed patient care: moving from…patient encountered approach to care to population health care… forcing us to get out of that one patient, one encounter, one charge, one service to [seeing] the patient encounter, the face to face visit, [a]s just one small portion of the total patient care experience. [practice F]

For this practice, RE-POWER encouraged movement away from fee-for-service paradigm to a more holistic population health management orientation, a shift that would benefit patients and communities beyond the duration of the trial.

Finally, clinicians explained how deciding to participate in RE-POWER conveyed a broader commitment to health and community engagement: It has been great for our patients. Between the newspaper article and our Facebook shout out, we have been amazed at people within our practice, people within our community that have come in and connected and touched our practice in some way. Through the study we have learned both from a marketing standpoint and from a community engagement standpoint, studies are great ways—studies like this that are relevant—are great ways to connect and keep people engaged in what we are doing here. So, it has since raised our interest in potential for doing future studies. But initially, that wasn't a huge desire of our practice. [practice F]

For this practice, the relevance of obesity was key for their participation yielding a positive impact on and response from their community.

Discussion

Interviews with lead family medicine clinicians at 21 rural practices revealed 3 main motivations for participation in the RE-POWER clinical trial. First, clinicians identified obesity as a persistent problem for their patients and viewed participation in the pragmatic trial as a concrete solution that would fill a gap in care. In this way, the clinical relevance for their practices of a trial on obesity management motivated participation. Second, clinicians also conveyed a sense of inadequacy about this topic, which emerged in the second motivation related to professional identity. Finally, some clinicians were motivated to participate as a way to signal that their clinic had a commitment to improving the overall health of the community.

Overall, clinician participation in this trial offered both instrumental and symbolic value to participants. In addition to receiving tools and support to specifically address a challenging clinical problem, clinicians saw the study as a pathway to reduce professional frustration—helping them embody the philosophy of family medicine to provide patient-centered, continuous, and holistic care that seeks to help patients live well.46,47,49⇓⇓–52 Finally, participation provided, for some, a means of solidifying their commitment to their entire community.

Previous research has identified many barriers to optimal obesity management in rural settings, including higher rates of obesity in rural populations, fewer referral resources for treatment, and inadequate time and training.15⇓–17 Our findings suggest that an additional complicating factor may be the way obesity provides a challenge to family medicine identity, as clinicians earnestly want to help all their patients with each of their concerns, but they face fundamental challenges to do so effectively.

Many obstacles to primary care involvement in research have been identified, like misalignment with the social environment and organizational culture53 and an interruption to the work or flow of clinic.30 Prior research has acknowledged the importance of relevance for primary care clinicians when making decisions about participating in research.28,29,54,55 Our study suggests that the perceived alignment of the research topic and goals with the professional identity and responsibilities of the primary care clinician may also be a crucial factor influencing decisions to participate. Although a lack of time may prevent participation,28 our data suggest that clinicians are highly motivated to make time for research that promises to close the gap between ideal and real clinical practice. The extra burden placed on each practice to execute the RE-POWER study was considerable given the length of their involvement (3 years); the number of patients enrolled at each site (median, 40); and depending on their assigned arm, the work of study counseling and data collection visits. Their willingness to accept this burden signaled their motivation to participate despite the potential challenges.

These findings support that evaluating relevance is crucial for primary care physicians considering research participation.30 Relevance can be evaluated at a clinical level (does this research respond to problems my patients are facing?), at the professional level (does participation give me tools and resources to be the kind of clinician I want to be?), and at the community level (does this research offer value to the broader community and demonstrate commitment to health beyond the clinic?). In the case of RE-POWER, they were operant questions.

Limitations of the study include that interviews were conducted with clinicians from a subset of practices that participated in RE-POWER and that they may not be representative of all clinicians at participating practices. In addition, because we focus only on participating clinicians, we are unable to know the degree to which these same motivations were present or absent for those that chose not to participate. We also do not know whether the same motivations would be found in a nonrural sample or with a study on a different clinical topic. Finally, although not all interviews were recorded, the same themes were identified across both recorded and nonrecorded interviews.

Our study examined motivations to participate in RE-POWER, a rural clinical trial on obesity. Despite the additional workload, clinicians were drawn to participating in this trial because it aligned with a pervasive and challenging clinical problem, helped aligned professional identity with clinical practice, and provided clinicians with a means to sustainably benefit their communities.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful for the invaluable help from Lara Bennett and Stephanie Punt with qualitative coding. We are also thankful to the clinicians who graciously shared their time and perspectives with us.

Appendix

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Appendix.

Interview Guide Based on Constructs and Subdomains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • Funding: This work was supported by PCORI OB-1402-09413. KSK was supported in part by an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award grant (UL1 TR002366) to the University of Kansas Medical Center.

  • Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest identified.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/33/5/736.full.

  • Received for publication February 25, 2020.
  • Revision received May 23, 2020.
  • Accepted for publication May 26, 2020.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Befort CA,
    2. Nazir N,
    3. Perri MG
    . Prevalence of obesity among adults from rural and urban areas of the United States: findings From NHANES (2005–2008). J Rural Health 2012;28:392–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Krishna S,
    2. Gillespie KN,
    3. McBride TM
    . Diabetes burden and access to preventive care in the rural United States. J Rural Health 2010;26:3–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Meit M,
    2. Knudson A,
    3. Gilbert T,
    4. et al
    . The 2014 update of the rural-urban chartbook. Chicago: The Rural Health Reform Policy Research Center; 2014.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Abdullah A,
    2. Peeters A,
    3. de Courten M,
    4. Stoelwinder J
    . The magnitude of association between overweight and obesity and the risk of diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;89:309–19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Wilcox S,
    2. Castro C,
    3. King AC,
    4. Housemann R,
    5. Brownson RC
    . Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the United States. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000;54:667–72.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Kegler MC,
    2. Swan DW,
    3. Alcantara I,
    4. Feldman L,
    5. Glanz K
    . The influence of rural home and neighborhood environments on healthy eating, physical activity, and weight. Prev Sci 2014;15:1–11.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ely AC,
    2. Befort C,
    3. Banitt A,
    4. Gibson C,
    5. Sullivan D
    . A qualitative assessment of weight control among rural Kansas women. J Nutr Educ Behav 2009;41:207–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Chan L,
    2. Hart LG,
    3. Goodman DC
    . Geographic access to health care for rural Medicare beneficiaries. J Rural Health 2006;22:140–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Moyer VA
    , U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for and management of obesity in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012;157:373–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Carvajal R,
    2. Wadden TA,
    3. Tsai AG,
    4. Peck K,
    5. Moran CH
    . Managing obesity in primary care practice: a narrative review. Ann NY Acad Sci 2013;1281:191–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Wadden TA,
    2. Butryn ML,
    3. Hong PS,
    4. Tsai AG
    . Behavioral treatment of obesity in patients encountered in primary care settings: a systematic review. JAMA 2014;312:1779–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Befort CA,
    2. Allen Greiner K,
    3. Hall S,
    4. et al
    . Weight-related perceptions among patients and physicians. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:1086–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Colligan G,
    2. Galloway J,
    3. Lempp H
    . Recipients' and providers' perspectives of obesity and potential barriers to weight management programmes in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA): a qualitative study. BMC Obes 2017;4:33.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Johnstone J,
    2. Herredsberg C,
    3. Lacy L,
    4. et al
    . What I wish my doctor really knew: the voices of patients with obesity. Ann Fam Med 2020;18:169–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Mercer SW,
    2. Tessier S
    . A qualitative study of general practitioners' and practice nurses' attitudes to obesity management in primary care. Health Bull (Edinb) 2001;59:248–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hansson LM,
    2. Rasmussen F,
    3. Ahlstrom GI
    . General practitioners' and district nurses' conceptions of the encounter with obese patients in primary health care. BMC Fam Pract 2011;12:7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Epstein L,
    2. Ogden J
    . A qualitative study of GPs' views of treating obesity. Br J Gen Pract 2005;55:750–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Hancock C,
    2. Steinbach A,
    3. Nesbitt TS,
    4. Adler SR,
    5. Auerswald CL
    . Why doctors choose small towns: a developmental model of rural physician recruitment and retention. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:1368–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Parlier AB,
    2. Galvin SL,
    3. Thach S,
    4. Kruidenier D,
    5. Fagan EB
    . The road to rural primary care: a narrative review of factors that help develop, recruit, and retain rural primary care physicians. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2018;93:130–40.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Cutchin MP
    . Community and self: concepts for rural physician integration and retention. Soc Sci Med 1997;44:1661–74. 1982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bove CF,
    2. Olson CM
    . Obesity in low-income rural women: qualitative insights about physical activity and eating patterns. Women Health 2006;44:57–78.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. 22.↵
    1. Murimi MW,
    2. Harpel T
    . Practicing preventive health: the underlying culture among low-income rural populations. J Rural Health 2010;26:273–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Lundeen EA
    . Obesity prevalence among adults living in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties—United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;67:653–658. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6723a1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hinrichs CC,
    2. Kremer KS
    . Social inclusion in a midwest local food system project. J Poverty 2002;6:65–90.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hill JO,
    2. Wyatt HR,
    3. Reed GW,
    4. Peters JC
    . Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here?. Science 2003;299:853–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Haardörfer R,
    2. Alcantara I,
    3. Addison A,
    4. Glanz K,
    5. Kegler MC
    . The impact of home, work, and church environments on fat intake over time among rural residents: a longitudinal observational study. BMC Public Health 2015;16:90.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Cook NL,
    2. Hicks LS,
    3. O'Malley AJ,
    4. Keegan T,
    5. Guadagnoli E,
    6. Landon BE
    . Access to specialty care and medical services in community health centers. Health Aff Proj Hope 2007;26:1459–68.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Hummers-Pradier E,
    2. Scheidt-Nave C,
    3. Martin H,
    4. Heinemann S,
    5. Kochen MM,
    6. Himmel W
    . Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research. Fam Pract 2008;25:105–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bakken S,
    2. Lantigua RA,
    3. Busacca LV,
    4. Bigger JT
    . Barriers, enablers, and incentives for research participation: a report from the Ambulatory Care Research Network (ACRN). J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:436–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Michalec B,
    2. Fagan HB,
    3. Rahmer B
    . Primary care practices' perceived constraints to engaging in research: the importance of context and “Flow.” Prim Health Care Res Dev 2014;15:58–71.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Green LA,
    2. Hickner J
    . A short history of primary care practice-based research networks: from concept to essential research laboratories. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:1–10.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Mold JW,
    2. Peterson KA
    . Primary care practice-based research networks: working at the interface between research and quality improvement. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:S12–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Barnett L,
    2. Holden L,
    3. Donoghue D,
    4. Passey M,
    5. Birden H
    . What's needed to increase research capacity in rural primary health care? Aust J Prim Health 2005;11:45–53.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Birden HH
    . The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research? Rural Remote Health 2007;7:776.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Befort CA,
    2. VanWormer JJ,
    3. DeSouza C,
    4. et al
    . Protocol for the Rural Engagement in Primary Care for Optimizing Weight Reduction (RE-POWER) trial: comparing three obesity treatment models in rural primary care. Contemp Clin Trials 2016;47:304–14.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Damschroder LJ,
    2. Aron DC,
    3. Keith RE,
    4. Kirsh SR,
    5. Alexander JA,
    6. Lowery JC
    . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2019;4:50.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Glaser B,
    2. Strauss A
    . The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction; 1999.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Glaser B
    . The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965;12:436–45.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Moghaddam A
    . Coding issues in grounded theory. Issues Educ Res 2006;16:52–66.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    1. Guetterman TC,
    2. Babchuk WA,
    3. Howell Smith MC,
    4. Stevens J
    . Contemporary approaches to mixed methods–grounded theory research: a field-based analysis. J Mix Methods Res 2019;13:179–95.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Strauss A,
    2. Corbin J
    . Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, second ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications; 1998.
  42. 42.↵
    1. Gioia DA,
    2. Corley KG,
    3. Hamilton AL
    . Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ Res Methods 2013;16:15–31.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Fernald DH,
    2. Duclos CW
    . Enhance your team-based qualitative research. Ann Fam Med 2005;3:360–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cornish F,
    2. Gillespie A,
    3. Zittoun T
    . Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. In: The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.; 2014;79–93.
  45. 45.↵
    1. Lincoln Y,
    2. Guba E
    . Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc; 1985.
  46. 46.↵
    1. Stoller D,
    2. Dozor R
    . Meaning and the politics of experience: A progressive agenda for family practice. Fam Syst Med 1988;6:249–55.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    1. Berger J
    . A fortunate man: the story of a country doctor. New York: Random House Digital, Inc.; 1997.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Heath I
    . Matters of life and death: key writings. Oxon, UK: Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.
  49. 49.↵
    1. McWhinney IR
    . Primary care: core values. Core values in a changing world. BMJ 1998;316:1807–9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. McWhinney I
    . Being a general practitioner: what it means. Eur J Gen Pract 2000;6:135–9.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.↵
    1. Stephens GG
    . Family medicine as counterculture. Fam Med Teach 1989;11:14–8.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.↵
    1. Stephens GG
    . The intellectual basis of family practice. Kansas City, MO: Winter Publishing Company; 1982.
  53. 53.↵
    1. Tong SF,
    2. Ng CJ,
    3. Lee VKM,
    4. et al
    . Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: a grounded theory study. PLoS One 2018;13:e0196379.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Askew DA,
    2. Clavarino AM,
    3. Glasziou PP,
    4. Mar C
    . General practice research: attitudes and involvement of Queensland general practitioners. Med J Aust 2002;177:74–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Gibson K,
    2. Szilagyi P,
    3. Swanger CM,
    4. et al
    . Physician perspectives on incentives to participate in practice-based research: a Greater Rochester Practice-Based Research Network (GR-PBRN) study. J Am Board Fam Med 2010;23:452–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 33 (5)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 33, Issue 5
September/October 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Rural Family Medicine Clinicians' Motivations to Participate in a Pragmatic Obesity Trial
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Rural Family Medicine Clinicians' Motivations to Participate in a Pragmatic Obesity Trial
Joanna Veazey Brooks, Kim S. Kimminau, Stacy McCrea-Robertson, Christie Befort
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2020, 33 (5) 736-744; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200083

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Rural Family Medicine Clinicians' Motivations to Participate in a Pragmatic Obesity Trial
Joanna Veazey Brooks, Kim S. Kimminau, Stacy McCrea-Robertson, Christie Befort
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Sep 2020, 33 (5) 736-744; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.05.200083
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Changing Face of Primary Care Research and Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Behavior Therapy
  • Family Physicians
  • Motivation
  • Obesity
  • Obesity Management
  • Practice-based Research
  • Qualitative Research
  • Primary Health Care
  • Rural Health
  • Weight Loss

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire