Table 2.

Areas of Primary Care Research Reports Where Respondents Encounter Problems “about Half or More of the Time”

Question*Respondents AnsweringEncounter Problems N (%)
Overall, how often does the reporting of PC research cause problems for your work?19874 (37.4)
How often do reports of primary care research make it difficult for you to:
 Synthesize findings across studies188109 (58.0)
 Apply the findings to primary care policy18997 (51.3)
 Replicate research findings16883 (49.4)
 Assess the generalizability/transportability of the findings to my patients, practice or community19883 (41.9)
 Identify specific actions that apply to primary care patient care/practice20081 (40.5)
 Apply the findings to primary care education19474 (38.1)
 Apply the findings to further primary care research19360 (31.1)
How often have you found reporting to be insufficient for these different types of PC research?
 Qualitative studies17084 (49.4)
 Mixed-methods studies16375 (46)
 Single-arm intervention trials14565 (44.8)
 Randomized controlled trials16471 (43.3)
 Surveys15865 (41.1)
 Cohort studies17165 (38)
 Meta-analysis16456 (34.1)
 Case study research14647 (32.2)
 Systematic reviews16953 (31.4)
In general, how often is the reporting of PC research problematic in these areas?
 Authorship and relative contributions of research team members15745 (28.7)
 Role of funders in research and reporting16335 (21.5)
 Potential conflicts of interest of researchers/authors15829 (18.4)
 Ethical conduct of research and institutional approval16312 (7.4)
How often do you see problems with the reporting of these components of PC research?
 Theoretical underpinnings of the research16287 (53.7)
 Description of teams, roles, and organization of care16186 (53.4)
 Involvement of patients, communities, others in the research process14878 (52.3)
 Reporting effect sizes15376 (49.7)
 Description of usual care16178 (48.4)
 Description of clinicians/providers16376 (46.6)
 Selection of the clinical sites, clinicians, or study locations16175 (46.6)
 Relationship between researchers and patients/participants14565 (44.8)
 Description of place/setting of research16062 (38.8)
 Analysis methods—mixed methods15158 (38.4)
 Selection of the patients/subjects/participants16362 (38)
 Qualitative methods15957 (35.8)
 Description of patients/subjects/participants16257 (35.2)
 Analysis methods—qualitative15553 (34.2)
 Measurement tools used16054 (33.8)
 Synthesis methods in systematic reviews or meta-analysis14347 (32.9)
 Blinding procedure15450 (32.5)
 Description of control/comparison groups16151 (31.7)
 Reporting uncertainty bands (eg, CIs)15246 (30.3)
 Description of interventions16248 (29.6)
 Purpose and context of the research question16648 (28.9)
 Study registration13537 (27.4)
 Randomization including allocation concealment14840 (27)
 Analysis methods—statistical15841 (25.9)
 Definition of the health problems/conditions under study16135 (21.7)
 Description of interventions16248 (29.6)
 Purpose and context of the research question16648 (28.9)
 Study registration13537 (27.4)
 Randomization including allocation concealment14840 (27)
 Analysis methods—statistical15841 (25.9)
 Definition of the health problems/conditions under study16135 (21.7)
  • PC, primary care; CI, confidence interval.

  • Online survey October 2018 to 2019.

  • See Appendix 3 for more detailed results.

  • In each section, items are listed in rank order by percent, not in order of presentation on the questionnaire.

  • * Answers were on a five-point Likert scale with frequency measures. Responses were not compulsory to move forward in the survey.

  • For each question, “Respondents Answering,” is the number of survey respondents who answered the question with Likert scale scores. “NA/Not Sure” responses are combined with no answers and are not shown. They total 255 – Respondents Answering.

  • “About half or more than half of the time.”