Article Figures & Data
Tables
Number % Total 252 100 Gender* (n = 221 answering) Male 98 44 Female 121 55 Other gender categories 2 1 Not answered 31 Nationality* (n = 214 answering) United States of America 93 43 Netherlands 28 13 South America 17 8 Canada 15 7 Australia 15 7 Africa 13 6 North America (Caribbean) 9 4 United Kingdom 8 4 Asia 7 3 Europe (other) 5 2 Oceania (other) 4 2 Not answered 38 Primary profession*† (n = 221 answering) Physician 195 88 Nursing and nursing practice 11 5 Educator 9 4 Physician assistant 7 3 Public health 7 3 Scientist 5 2 Administration 5 2 Clinical psychology 4 2 Social work 4 2 Pharmacy 3 1 Behavioral science 1 1 Other 6 3 Not answered 31 Type of physician* (n = 163 answering) Family medicine/general practice 144 88 Internal medicine 14 9 Pediatrics 4 2 Other 1 1 Not answered 89 Years since completion of professional training (n = 184 answering) 0–9 61 33 10–19 54 29 20–29 49 27 30–39 18 10 40–49 2 1 Not answered 68 How Often Do You Access Information about General Health Care Research? (n = 252 Answering) Never n (%) Few Times/Year n (%) Once/Month n (%) Once/Week n (%) Few Times/Week n (%) Daily n (%) No Answer n 1 (0.4) 11 (4.4) 22 (8.7) 38 (15.1) 102 (40.5) 78 (30.9) 0 Where do you learn about general health care research?*† (n = 252 answering) Number† % Academic journals (original articles) 219 86.9 Clinical practice guidelines 200 79.4 Newspapers 149 59.1 Informal discussions with colleagues at work 147 58.3 Medical newspapers and magazines 132 52.4 Summaries in academic journals 133 52.8 Summaries of research (ie, clinical PEARLS) 111 44 Social media including Facebook and Twitter 73 29 Blogs on the Internet 60 23.8 Podcasts about research or clinical practice 49 19.4 Journal clubs 44 17.4 Pharmaceutical company representatives 26 10.3 Other 23 9.1 Guidelines from professional organizations 0 0 Not answered 0 0 How often do you read original general health care research reports in academic journals? (n = 252 answering) Never n (%) Few Times/Year n (%) Monthly n (%) Weekly n (%) Daily n (%) No Answer n 6 (2.4) 51 (20.2) 91 (36.1) 87 (34.5) 17 (6.7) 0 How often do general health research reports deliver what you need to: Rarely n (%) Sometimes n (%) Frequently n (%) Always n (%) No Answer n Mean†† Understand the take-home messages 6 (2.5) 97 (41.1) 118 (50) 15 (6.4) 16 2.60 Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community 28 (11.9) 132 (55.9) 71 (30.1) 5 (2.1) 16 2.23 Change your clinical practice 55 (23.5) 140 (59.8) 36 (15.4) 3 (1.3) 18 1.94 Critically appraise study quality 38 (16.4) 125 (53.9) 54 (23.3) 15 (6.5) 20 1.94 Consider further scholarship/research in your own context 95 (41.1) 96 (41.6) 33 (14.3) 7 (3) 21 1.79 How often do you read original primary care research reports in academic journals? Never n (%) A Few Times/Year n (%) Monthly n (%) Weekly n (%) Daily n (%) No Answer n 2 (0.9) 56 (23.8) 100 (42.5) 70 (29.8) 7 (3) 17 How often do primary care research reports deliver what you need to: Rarely n (%) Sometimes n (%) Frequently n (%) Always n (%) No Answer n Mean†† Understand the take-home message(s) 3 (1.3) 81 (36) 118 (52.4) 23 (10.2) 27 2.72§ Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community 11 (4.9) 102 (45.7) 98 (43.9) 12 (5.4) 29 2.50§ Change your clinical practice 28 (12.5) 154 (68.7) 38 (17) 4 (1.8) 28 2.08§ Critically appraise study quality 31 (14.2) 125 (57) 53 (24.2) 10 (4.6) 33 2.19 Consider further scholarship/research in your own context 57 (25.7) 118 (53.1) 41 (18.5) 6 (2.7) 30 1.98§ Online survey 2019. n = 252.
↵* More than one option possible.
↵† Options are displayed here in rank order, not as presented on the questionnaire.
↵†† Four-point Likert scale: 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = frequently, 4 = always. See Appendix 2 for differences between ratings of general health care (GHC) and primary care (PC) research reports.
↵§ Significant difference in distributions of Likert scale scores, with PC scores higher than GHC scores, by Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test, 2-tailed, alpha = 0.01. See detail in Appendix 2.
Category
Subcategory
Summary comment*“Respondent quotation.“
CATEGORY SUBCATEGORY CULTURE AND CAPACITY CULTURE AND CAPACITY
Build primary care culture, skills, and attitudes to sustain research activity, including reporting“Also engaging more practitioners in research would help. In that way, more practitioners would learn the language of research.“ (Physician, FP; Researcher; Netherlands; M)†
“necesita motivar a los jovenes medicos residentes para medicina familiar y asi se involucren en investigacion primaria.“ (You need to motivate young resident doctors for family medicine and get involved in primary research) (PA; Administration, Clinical Psychology, Public Health, Social Work; Dominican Republic; F)
“Often underresourced in terms of manpower and physical resources.” (Physician, FP; South Africa; M)
PLANNING RESEARCH PLANNING “Why doesn't every research study done on PC or on some intervention to be implemented in PC have at least one PCP and one PC patient on the research team?“ (Nurse; USA; F)
Report the origin of the research question and how it is connected to patient care in practice“Studies should arise from research questions that arise from problems of patients in primary care centers” (Physician, FP; Educator; Argentina; F)
Report the composition and involvement of the variety of research team members through process of research, eg, practitioners, patients, nurses“If and when the research team included: Practitioners, Patients, Community Representatives.” (Social Worker; USA; F)
CONTEXT OF PC RESEARCH CONTEXT
Description of the complex contexts of patients, problems, and practice
Clinicians
Description of clinicians, teams and how they are organized“There are many models of delivering behavioral health to PC patients. We need more info on types of providers and how they are integrated into PC practice.” (PA; USA; M)
“When there is a multiprofessional team working on the intervention, the researchers need to make clear the interactions among the team members. Who sees the pt first; who administers the test or treatment; when do non-MDs refer to MDs, etc. Team members often have different roles in pt care and should be reported separately.” (Physician, Pediatrics; Nation N/A; F)
Description of patients and populations in practice and community-based research“To understand the impact of the research study, I need to know more than is usually reported about who the patients are, beyond the usual age/sex.” (Physician, FP; Nation N/A; Gender N/A)
Recognition and description of illness as it occurs in PC“There is still too much single-diseased research in general including primary care that ignores treatment burden across diseases.” (Physician, FP; Nation N/A; M)
Recognition and description of the relationships among patients, families, clinicians, and other members of PC teams“What their relationship is: continuity pts? How long? First visit? Referred or primary?” (FP; Physician; Nation N/A; Gender N/A)
“Researchers should collect and report information about the relationship between patients and clinicians in describing their research” (Physician, FP; Ireland; M)
Description of pragmatic and complex interventions in PC
Healthcare setting (includes medical records)
Recognition and description of the complex settings of care and work in PC“Major quality, major information about ambulatory setting.” (PA; Public Health; Argentina; F)
RESEARCH METHODS METHODS
Presentation of the underlying theory behind the research
Analytic methods“I would like to see research reports describe in their method sections more explanation of why certain statistical techniques are chosen.” (Physician, FP; Canada; F)
“Method sections often describe measures—like patient outcome measures—which appear to be research tools that we do not use in clinical practice. I want to have some information on the clinical validity of these tools in PC before I accept them as validated research tools. Many come from specialty researchers.” (Physician, FP; USA; F)
DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH FINDINGS DISSEMINATION
Presentation of findings in accessible and comprehensible way to patients and communities affected
Accessibility††
Presentation of findings in accessible and comprehensible way to PC clinicians“Easier access to online journals.” (Physician, FP; Jamaica; M)
“‘Open access’ seems to be a fraud—it's not open to me. It often means that I cannot get access to some study I'm trying to find, even if it was linked from a newsletter or other pub aimed at practicing GPs. Sometimes you can go through a university or some other linkage, but this is not user-friendly or available at point of care. Is just another speedbump between research and practice.” (Physician, IM; Canada; M)
“I think that an audience for primary care research is patients. As such the reporting should be patient-centered.” (Physician, FP; USA; F)
“Centralized repository list with links that is regularly updated and available on the major FM websites.” (Physician, FP; USA; F)
Adequate space to describe PC research methods, results. and context“By making it easier to publish findings and helping researchers to communicate their findings.” (Physician, FP; Researcher; Netherlands; M)
Guidance from PC research reporting guidelines that are different than currently exist“Developing a standard format of doing this report would help all primary care clinicians.” (Physician, FP; Nigeria; M)
“I would like to see research reports describe in their method sections more explanation of why certain statistical techniques are chosen.” (Physician, FP; Canada; F)
“Succinct reporting.” (Physician, FP; Educator; Australia; F)
“Short and direct to the point.” (Physician, FP; Brazil; F)
“Incorporate simple language summaries” (Physician, FP; Educator; Nigeria; M)
“The focus should be on applicability in 3 short sentences that summarize the findings.” (Physician, FP; Denmark; F)
“Work on providing summaries of a body of research. A single research paper is almost never worthy of changing practice (and hence seldom time efficient for me to read) unless it is a large and particularly well-done RCT.” (Physician, FP; Canada; M)
IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH FINDINGS IMPLICATIONS
Richer discussion of implications for research, practice, education, and policy“Specifically a statement as to how this could be used to change clinical practice activities.” (Physician, FP; USA; M)
Description of the context in sufficient detail to assess generalizability to variety of PC contexts“This means that findings/results of research should always be placed in the context of primary and community care.” (Physician, FP; Netherlands; M)
“Research in the primary care setting is different from hospitals in that the population is bigger with healthier persons, thus it is more difficult to prove something works. This fact frustrates the introduction of practices that are proven effective in hospital care but don't get access to the primary care healthcare.” (Physician, FP; Netherlands; M)
“Consider the impact of recommendations when added to other likely protocols/guidelines.” (Physician, FP; Canada; F)
Demonstration that researchers and authors have grounded understanding of PC“Research reporting should be reported by taking into account practicality, usefulness, and the contextual nature of the environment of the practicing doctor. For example, there is no reason for an expert panel to report about a conceptual framework that is pure conjecture (or based on available research but has no relevance to the clinical climate of most practitioners).” (Physician, FP; Researcher, Public Health, Behavioral Science; Malaysia; M)
“PC research should call out that it is done in/by/for PC, so we can focus our limited time on reading those studies that are most likely to be helpful to us and our pts.” (Social Worker; USA; F)
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION
Description in details sufficient for implementation, application, and translation
Implementation in practice—organization and management††
Report organization and management methods to apply research findings in practice.“The problem is not individual reports but rather the need for impartial processes of integrating a particular report into clinical decision support, which is the current and likely future interface between research and actual care delivery.“ (Physician, FP; New Zealand; F)
Report how findings apply to patient care in practice“State what is new and its application in patient care.“ (Physician, Specialty N/A; Nigeria; M)
ETHICAL ISSUES ETHICAL ISSUES
Authorship
Description of contributions among large, multidisciplinary collaborative author groups“Do non-MDs and non-researchers get their due credit when the paper is finally published? In family medicine research, I often see that they do.“ (Social Worker; USA; F)
Information to help readers better assess potential conflicts of interest
Ethical researchOnline survey 2019. n = 252.
↵* “In what ways could PC research reporting be improved?“
↵† Respondent identification: (profession, medical specialty; research roles; nation; gender).
↵†† Categories emerging from practitioner comments that were not emphasized in survey of researchers.
F, female; FM, family medicine; FP, family physician or general practitioner; IM, internal medicine; M, male; N/A, data not available; PA, physician assistant; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Understand the take-home message(s) Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community Change your clinical practice Critically appraise study quality Consider further scholarship/research in your own context Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always Understand the take-home message(s) Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community Change your clinical practice Critically appraise study quality Consider further scholarship/research in your own context - Appendix 2.
Differences between Practitioner Ratings of Usefulness of Primary Care and General Health Care Research Reports
Question GHC
Research ReportsPC
Research Reportsn Difference*
PC - GHC Usefulness ScaleHow often do research reports deliver what you need to: Mean
SD
SEMMean
SD
SEMPairs Z P value Understand the take-home message(s) 2.60
0.65
0.042.72
0.66
0.04225 −2.77 P = .0056 Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community 2.25
0.68
0.052.50
0.68
0.05222 −5.24 P < .0001 Change your clinical practice 1.96
0.67
0.042.08
0.60
0.04223 −3.34 P = .0008 Critically appraise study quality 2.18
0.79
0.052.20
0.73
0.05218 −0.25 P = .80 Consider further scholarship/research in your own context 1.80
0.80
0.051.98
0.75
0.05220 −3.73 P = .0002 Online survey 2019. n = 252.
↵* Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test, 2-tailed, alpha = 0.01.
GHC, general health care; PC, primary care; SD, standard deviation.