Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Clinician Use of Primary Care Research Reports

William R. Phillips, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Angela Yang, Paul Glasziou, Tim Olde Hartman, Aaron Orkin, Grant M. Russell and Chris van Weel
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2021, 34 (3) 648-660; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2021.03.200436
William R. Phillips
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth Sturgiss
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
BMed, FRACGP, MPH, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Angela Yang
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
BS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Glasziou
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MBBS, FRACGP, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tim Olde Hartman
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MD, PhD, FP/GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron Orkin
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MD, MSc, MPH, CCFP (EM), FRCPC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Grant M. Russell
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MBBS, MFM, FRACGP, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris van Weel
From the University of Washington, Seattle (WRP, AY); Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, (ES, GMR); Bond University, Robina, Queensland, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CvW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (AO); Australia National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia (CvW).
MD, PhD, FRCGP (Hon), FRACGP (Hon)
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Characteristics of Survey Respondents

    Number%
    Total252100
    Gender* (n = 221 answering)
        Male9844
        Female12155
        Other gender categories21
        Not answered31
    Nationality* (n = 214 answering)
        United States of America9343
        Netherlands2813
        South America178
        Canada157
        Australia157
        Africa136
        North America (Caribbean)94
        United Kingdom84
        Asia73
        Europe (other)52
        Oceania (other)42
        Not answered38
    Primary profession*† (n = 221 answering)
        Physician19588
        Nursing and nursing practice115
        Educator94
        Physician assistant73
        Public health73
        Scientist52
        Administration52
        Clinical psychology42
        Social work42
        Pharmacy31
        Behavioral science11
        Other63
        Not answered31
    Type of physician* (n = 163 answering)
        Family medicine/general practice14488
        Internal medicine149
        Pediatrics42
        Other11
        Not answered89
    Years since completion of professional training (n = 184 answering)
        0–96133
        10–195429
        20–294927
        30–391810
        40–4921
        Not answered68
    • Online survey 2019. n = 252.

    • ↵* Options are displayed here in rank order, not as presented on the questionnaire.

    • ↵† More than one option possible.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Respondent Ratings of Access to General Health Care and Primary Care Research

    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)21986.9
    Clinical practice guidelines20079.4
    Newspapers14959.1
    Informal discussions with colleagues at work14758.3
    Medical newspapers and magazines13252.4
    Summaries in academic journals13352.8
    Summaries of research (ie, clinical PEARLS)11144
    Social media including Facebook and Twitter7329
    Blogs on the Internet6023.8
    Podcasts about research or clinical practice4919.4
    Journal clubs4417.4
    Pharmaceutical company representatives2610.3
    Other239.1
    Guidelines from professional organizations00
    Not answered00
    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 nMean††
    Understand the take-home messages6 (2.5)97 (41.1)118 (50)15 (6.4)162.60
    Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community28 (11.9)132 (55.9)71 (30.1)5 (2.1)162.23
    Change your clinical practice55 (23.5)140 (59.8)36 (15.4)3 (1.3)181.94
    Critically appraise study quality38 (16.4)125 (53.9)54 (23.3)15 (6.5)201.94
    Consider further scholarship/research in your own context95 (41.1)96 (41.6)33 (14.3)7 (3)211.79
    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 nMean††
    Understand the take-home message(s)3 (1.3)81 (36)118 (52.4)23 (10.2)272.72§
    Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community11 (4.9)102 (45.7)98 (43.9)12 (5.4)292.50§
    Change your clinical practice28 (12.5)154 (68.7)38 (17)4 (1.8)282.08§
    Critically appraise study quality31 (14.2)125 (57)53 (24.2)10 (4.6)332.19
    Consider further scholarship/research in your own context57 (25.7)118 (53.1)41 (18.5)6 (2.7)301.98§
    • 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.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Categories of Practitioner Comments on Reporting of Primary Care Research

    Category
    Subcategory
    Summary comment*
    • “Respondent quotation.“

    CATEGORYSUBCATEGORY
    CULTURE AND CAPACITYCULTURE 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)†

    Research training
    • “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)

    Funding and infrastructure
    • “Often underresourced in terms of manpower and physical resources.” (Physician, FP; South Africa; M)

    PLANNING RESEARCHPLANNING
    • “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)

    Research question
    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)

    Research team††
    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 RESEARCHCONTEXT
    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)

    Patient population
    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)

    Problem studied
    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)

    Relationships
    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)

    Types of interventions
    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 METHODSMETHODS
    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)

    Study methods
    • “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 FINDINGSDISSEMINATION
    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)

    Audience
    • “I think that an audience for primary care research is patients. As such the reporting should be patient-centered.” (Physician, FP; USA; F)

    Clearinghouse function††
    • “Centralized repository list with links that is regularly updated and available on the major FM websites.” (Physician, FP; USA; F)

    Publication process
    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)

    Reporting guidelines
    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)

    Research reporting
    • “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)

    Simple language††
    • “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)

    Summarize††
    • “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 FINDINGSIMPLICATIONS
    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)

    Generalizability
    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)

    Impact††
    • “Consider the impact of recommendations when added to other likely protocols/guidelines.” (Physician, FP; Canada; F)

    Relevance
    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 RESEARCHIMPLEMENTATION
    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)

    Implementation in practice—clinical patient care††
    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 ISSUESETHICAL 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)

    Conflicts of interest—“competing interests”
    Information to help readers better assess potential conflicts of interest
    Ethical research
    • Online 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.

  • RarelySometimesFrequentlyAlways
    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
  • RarelySometimesFrequentlyAlways
    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
    • View popup
    Appendix 2.

    Differences between Practitioner Ratings of Usefulness of Primary Care and General Health Care Research Reports

    QuestionGHC
    Research Reports
    PC
    Research Reports
    nDifference*
    PC - GHC Usefulness Scale
    How often do research reports deliver what you need to:Mean
    SD
    SEM
    Mean
    SD
    SEM
    PairsZP value
    Understand the take-home message(s)2.60
    0.65
    0.04
    2.72
    0.66
    0.04
    225−2.77P = .0056
    Apply findings to your patients, practice, and community2.25
    0.68
    0.05
    2.50
    0.68
    0.05
    222−5.24P < .0001
    Change your clinical practice1.96
    0.67
    0.04
    2.08
    0.60
    0.04
    223−3.34P = .0008
    Critically appraise study quality2.18
    0.79
    0.05
    2.20
    0.73
    0.05
    218−0.25P = .80
    Consider further scholarship/research in your own context1.80
    0.80
    0.05
    1.98
    0.75
    0.05
    220−3.73P = .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.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 34 (3)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 34, Issue 3
May/June 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • 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.
Clinician Use of Primary Care Research Reports
(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.
Citation Tools
Clinician Use of Primary Care Research Reports
William R. Phillips, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Angela Yang, Paul Glasziou, Tim Olde Hartman, Aaron Orkin, Grant M. Russell, Chris van Weel
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2021, 34 (3) 648-660; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.03.200436

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Clinician Use of Primary Care Research Reports
William R. Phillips, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Angela Yang, Paul Glasziou, Tim Olde Hartman, Aaron Orkin, Grant M. Russell, Chris van Weel
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine May 2021, 34 (3) 648-660; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.03.200436
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Appendix 1. CRISP Practitioner Questionnaire
    • Appendix
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Améliorer les rapports de recherche en soins primaires: Présentation de la Liste de vérification des éléments de rapport d'études en soins primaires établis par consensus
  • Improving primary care research reporting: Introducing the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care checklist
  • Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care--the CRISP Statement
  • Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study
  • COVID-19 Pandemic Practices, Payment Models, and Publication Successes: Family Medicine Studies a Variety of Primary Care Questions
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Primary Care Intervention to Improve Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Developing Content Weights for the 2026 Sports Medicine Blueprint
  • Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Funding for Family Medicine Faculty
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Biomedical Research
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Family Medicine
  • Health Communication
  • Health Services Research
  • Medical Informatics
  • Primary Health Care
  • Publishing
  • Research Design
  • Research Report
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Translational Medical Research

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

© 2026 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire