Internationalisation of general practice journals: a bibliometric analysis of the Science Citation Index database

General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021

BACKGROUND

There are various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used to index general practice research, without consistency.

AIM

To understand how general practice-related research is indexed in the main general practice journals between 2011 and 2021, and to analyse the factors that influenced the choice of the general practice-related MeSH.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a quantitative bibliometric study conducted on MEDLINE.

METHOD

MeSH were selected according to the international definition of General Practice/Family Medicine: 'General Practice', 'Primary Health Care', 'Family Practice', 'General Practitioners', 'Physicians, Primary Care', and 'Physicians, Family'. Their use was studied from 2011 to 2021 on MEDLINE, reviewing the 20 general practice journals with the highest impact factors. A descriptive and analytical approach was used; the association of the country, journal, and year with the choice of general practice-related MeSH terms was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 8514 of 150 286 articles (5.7%) were using one of the general practice-related MeSH terms. The most used were 'Primary Health Care' (4648/9984, 46.6%) and 'General Practice' (2841/9984, 28.5%). A total of 80.0% (6172/7723) of the articles were related to the UK or US and 71.0% (6055/8514) of the articles came from four journals (BJGP, BMJ, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine). Two main country clusters emerged from the use of general practice-related MeSH: a British cluster mainly using 'General Practice' and an American cluster using 'Primary Health Care'. The journals also mainly differed in their used of these two MeSH terms.

CONCLUSION

Important variations in the indexation of general practice research were found. Researchers should consider combining 'Primary Health Care' and 'General Practice' in their PubMed searches to access all the general practice research, regardless of their country of origin.

[Evaluation of the Scientific Production in the Field of General Practice and Family Medicine in Portugal]

INTRODUCTION

The Portuguese publications in the field of General Practice and Family Medicine have not yet been assessed in bibliometric studies. The aim of this study was to analyze that production between 2012 and 2022.

METHODS

The Web of Science Core Collection was used to gather the number of articles, journals and citations obtained; the Journal Citation Reports to obtain the Impact Factor and quartile of journals; and Scimago Journal & Country Rank, for the comparison of data with other European countries. The search was based on the following query: "usf OR unidade de Saude Familiar OR centro de Saude OR ACeS OR medicina geral familiar OR Gen Practice Family SAME Portugal", and a time window between 2012 and 2022 was defined. The study considered the following quantitative indicators: total number of publications, typology, language, affiliation, co-authors, geographical distribution, thematic areas, and the number of publications/inhabitant and publications/physician from European countries; the qualitative indicators selected were the Impact Factor (IF), the quartile and the number of citations.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2022, the national scientific production had an average annual growth rate of 36.6%. Of 389 publications, 73.8% were 'Articles' and 11.8% were 'Review Articles', predominantly in English (88.4%). The fields of 'General Internal Medicine' (24.7%) and 'Public Environmental Health' (14.9%) had the highest publication rates among the journals. The 389 publications received 5354 citations, for an average of 13.76 citations per article, and the average yearly citation growth was 115%. According to IF, 22.5% of the 222 journals belonged to Q4, 27.5% to Q3, 29.7% to Q2 and 20.3% to Q1, and therefore no significant bias regarding the journals where Portuguese doctors publish was observed.

CONCLUSION

The bibliometric analysis allowed us to examine the evolution of the scientific production in the field of Portuguese General Practice and Family Medicine by observing an increasing publication trend and with a high potential for publication growth.