Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: The views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe

Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals

BACKGROUND

Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.

METHODS

A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

Barriers to research in family medicine-interviews with Portuguese family physician researchers

BACKGROUND

There is a need for a deeper understanding of the barriers to research in family medicine (FM) and to consider the perceptions and perspectives of professionals. Our study aims to provide a strategic view for research capacity building in FM. We included the perspective of family physician researchers (FPR) on the existing barriers to investigation in this context.

OBJECTIVES

To understand and characterize the barriers to research in FM (personal and structural), from the perspective of Portuguese family physicians who are researchers.

METHODS

A qualitative study, of phenomenological nature, was performed, through the conduction of semi-structured interviews with FPR, from 2019 to 2022. Data analysis and thematic coding were done on MAxQDA®, with inductive and deductive approaches, until data saturation was reached.

RESULTS

A total of 12 family physicians/researchers were interviewed. Seven main themes were identified as barriers to research: time, professional valorization, funding, ethics committees, infrastructure, management/institutions, and participants. Each theme is divided into subthemes that make it possible to assess how a barrier can affect researchers in performing research activities.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the identification of 7 main barriers. Structuring them into sub-themes not only improved the organization of our results but also provided robust support for the next phase, namely the application of a survey with the aim of gaining a deeper insight into the repercussions that these barriers to FPR have at a national level. This research is crucial to laying the foundations for a policy document that offers well-defined and tailored recommendations to address the barriers we have uncovered.

Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series

BACKGROUND

Long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care and improvement the healthcare system as a whole requires the involvement of GPs in clinical research processes. However, many clinical studies fail due to failure to achieve sample population targets amongst GPs and their patients. This issue has been identified and discussed, but effective strategies to overcome it are still lacking. One of the reasons is that the positions, requirements, and experiences of GPs on participating in clinical research have hardly been examined up to now.

METHODS

The years 2021 and 2022 saw three quantitative and qualitative surveys amongst GPs in Germany with the aim of shedding light on the attitudes, experiences, and potential issues regarding the involvement of primary care in clinical research projects and participation in cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) in a general sense. This overview summarises and abstracts conclusions gained from the exploratory series of studies and compares the results with the current research situation. From here, this contribution will then develop an approach towards optimising the integration of GPs into clinical research.

RESULTS

Most of the GPs asked associated clinical research with opportunities and potential such as closing gaps in healthcare, using evidence-based instruments, optimising diagnostic and therapeutic management, and reinforcement of multiprofessional healthcare. Even so, many GPs unsure as to how far primary care in particular would stand to benefit from studies of this type in the long term. Respondents were also divided on willingness to participate in clinical research. GPs having already participated in Innovation Fund projects generally saw a benefit regarding intervention and cost-benefit relationship. However, some also reported major hurdles and stress factors such as excessive documentation and enrolment requirements, greater interference in practice routines, and sometimes poor integration into project processes such as in communication and opportunities to play an active role in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the studies presented provide indications as to how GPs perceive clinical research projects and cRCTs as a whole and from their existing project experience, and on the requirements that studies would have to meet for GPs to be willing to participate. In particular, making sure that clinical studies fully conform with GPs would play a major role; this especially applies to freedom to make medical decisions, limitation of documentation obligations, interference in regular practice routine, greater involvement in research planning, and long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care. Clinical research projects and cRCTs should be planned, designed, and communicated for clear and visible relevance to everyday primary care.

Strategies for research capacity building by family physicians in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The qualities of primary healthcare (PHC) make it a very relevant environment for research; however, there is still work to be done to enhance the research capabilities of family physicians in healthcare units. Considering there is no ongoing review that specifically addresses this objective, the proposed goal of this scoping review is to determine the depth of the literature on the current strategies that support research capacity building among family physicians in the context of PHC.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will include studies from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and grey literature, published from 2008 to 2023, that address strategies to promote research capacity building among family physicians in the context of PHC. Only studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish will be considered. All study designs, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, will be eligible for inclusion. The literature search will be performed from January to March of 2024 and data charting will employ a descriptive-analytical method, systematically summarising study objectives, methodologies, findings and implications. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the review will employ the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not need ethical approval. Peer-reviewed publications, policy summaries, presentations at conferences and involvement with pertinent stakeholders are all part of our outreach approach.

Strategies for the Promotion of Primary Health Care Research in Portugal: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

There are several barriers discouraging clinicians from undertaking research, including insufficient funding, lack of time, organizational issues and lack of support. The strengthening of research capacity is perceived from three levels: characteristics of the researcher, the environment, and organizational issues. To date, Portugal is lacking studies on this subject. The aim of this study was to identify the best practices to promote research in Portuguese Primary Health Care.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with family doctors with broadly recognized research work and other stakeholders. We selected a sample by convenience and snowball sampling. From a total of 14 doctors invited by email, 12 responded positively, and we subsequently included two other stakeholders. We conducted the interviews in digital or face-to-face formats. Two team members handled the coding of interviews independently. We kept all recordings and transcripts confidential, only accessible to researchers.

RESULTS

We identified 16 strategies: 1) increasing institutional support; 2) creating support structures; 3) redefining the residency program; 4) investing in research training; 5) redefining curriculum evaluation; 6) establishing dedicated time for research; 7) increasing funding; 8) improving access to research data; 9) being a research driver; 10) establishing a research culture; 11) working in collaboration; 12) creating formally organized research groups; 13) creating autonomous research centers; 14) improving the definition of the research subjects and study designs; 15) reviewing procedures for ethics' committees; and 16) reviewing the current selection of articles for publication.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a greater proportion of interviewees identified the following as the most relevant strategies for research promotion: institutional support, including technical and scientific support from public institutions, private entities and academic centers; the reorganization of working hours with protected time for research; increased funding directed towards research and breaking isolation in research, promoting teamwork with clinicians within the same area or from different professional backgrounds.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet)

BACKGROUND

Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed.

METHODS

We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes.

RESULTS

N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources.

CONCLUSIONS

PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe

The European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) has recently published an updated research strategy with the overall aim being to promote relevant research of the highest quality within general practice/family medicine (GP/FM). The Research Strategy indicates a global direction and serves as a basis for more detailed plans in individual countries that will take into account the characteristics of a country, its specific needs and the level of current research capacity. This paper aims to provide a summary of the EGPRN Research Strategy.The Research Strategy suggests that it is necessary to consider what the knowledge deficits are and to set research priorities. Research capacity building (RCB) is required at all levels. Research in GP/FM will also have to reflect the changes in the profession. An innovative and sustainable-oriented approach to conducting research is needed. Use of existing toolkits and engagement with patient platforms and representative groups are necessary to ensure meaningful user involvement. Knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) is an important component to ensure a process of exchange between researchers and knowledge users.Working to improve leadership, to support the creation of a research culture in GP/FM and to increase national and international networking are considered as fundamental to ensuring a portfolio of high-quality research and for improving the impact of GP/FM research. The recommendations in the Research Strategy are based on a review of the literature on general practice research from 2010 to 2019 and are set in the context of a theoretical framework.

General practitioners' willingness to participate in research networks in Germany

OBJECTIVES

To investigate general practitioners' (GPs') willingness to participate in long-term medical research and in research networks (RNs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional survey among German GPs around Halle-Wittenberg and Leipzig in 2020.

SUBJECTS

Random sample of 905 GPs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Response rate 37%, 69% female. Overall, 57% were interested in participating in medical research, 34% in an active role in a RN. Interest in RN participation was positively associated with male sex, younger age, previous experiences in medical research, being involved in teaching undergraduates, and having qualification in a further specialty. Main motivators were improving patient care, giving a more realistic picture of GP care, and carrying out research on topics within their own interest areas and a reliable contact person at the leading institution. Most GPs were not afraid of reduced earnings; however, time investment was the main barrier for participation. GPs were willing to dedicate twice as much time to research when remuneration was offered. High rated topics were polypharmacy, chronic diseases, drug safety and adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

GPs are interested to participate in practice-based research. The study results providing useful and generalizable insights in barriers and motivators should be considered when building and running GP-RNs.KEY POINTSThere is a difference between general practitioners' (GPs') overall interest in clinical research and their job and socio-demographic related readiness to participate in research networks (RNs).GPs are interested in RNs when it is a resource of and leading to enhanced patient-oriented care.GPs are willing to dedicate twice as much time to research when remunerated.GPs need a reliable counterpart within the leading institution.

General Practice/Family Medicine Research During the Pandemic: Showing The Links to the EGPRN Research Strategy

General Practice/Family Medicine is at the forefront of the clinical response to the COVID-19 crisis just as it is known to be a critical component of healthcare systems globally. A large number of COVID-19 related papers have been published and dedicated funding calls were available in many countries and across the European Union. However, General Practice/Family Medicine does not feature as strongly as it should in COVID-19 high impact publications or successful funding applications. In this paper, we take a look at the findings on which the recommendations of the “European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) Research Strategy for General Practice in Europe 2021” are based and highlight how these align with the COVID-19 experience of General Practice/Family research. To elaborate on this, the issues identified and the recommendations of the EGPRN Research Strategy are grouped into three broad areas on which we need to focus – capacity, collaboration, and complexity (3-Cs). Apparent or presumed deficiencies in these 3-Cs are possibly why the General Practice/Family research impact during COVID-19 does not match its position on the ground in fighting the pandemic and supporting patients. The EGPRN Research Strategy identifies how we might work to position ourselves better in the future and gain the recognition deserved, in terms of publications, research funding, and prominence. Keywords: general practice, research, pandemics, publications, financing

The Relationship Between CEO Duality and Business Firms' Performance: The Moderating Role of Firm Size and Corporate Social Responsibility

This study focuses on exploring the relationship between chief executive officer (CEO) duality and firm performance. We focus on how the size and corporate social responsibility (CSR) of firms moderate this relationship. In terms of size, business organizations are of two types: small and large firms. This study uses datasets of listed Chinese business firms included in the China Stock Market and Accounting Research database. It employs a generalized method of moment's technique to explore the connection between CEO duality and the performance of Chinese business firms through double mediation effects. Our empirical analysis showed that CEO duality has a significant negative relationship with firm performance. We also explored the moderating effects of firm size (small and large) and CSR practices on the relationship between CEO duality and improved performance of Chinese firms. Large firms and CSR practices showed significant and positive moderating effects on the relationship between CEO duality and firm performance. Conversely, with CEO duality, small firms showed a negative moderating influence on firm performance. This inclusive model provides valuable insights into how the dual role of the CEO of a firm affected the performance of Chinese firms through the moderating role of CSR practices and firm size for better business performance. The study offers empirical and theoretical contributions to the corporate governance literature. This research framework might help researchers in designing robust strategies to evaluate the effects on firm performance. Researchers may gain helpful insights using this methodology.

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

Research plays a crucial role in the development of primary health care. Researchers in other specialities have studied the internationalisation of their journals, but no such study has been conducted for general practice. The aim of this study was to analyse the volume of publication and internationalisation of general practice journals indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database in 2019. Of the total 1573 articles and reviews in 19 journals indexed under the subject category of 'primary health care' in the SCI database, 86.4% (n = 1359) were published in four English-speaking countries (32.8% in seven US journals, 34.8% in five UK journals, 12.5% in two Australian journals and 6.4% in one Canadian journal) and 40.6% (n = 639) were authored or coauthored by authors from a country other than that in which the journal was published. There was a significant (P < 0.05) relationship between the country of publication and the degree of internationalisation of the journal. The degree of internationalisation of general practice journals varied from 94.2% for family practice to 2.0% for primary care. There are wide disparities in internationalisation among different countries and general practice journals. There is much room for improvement in the internationalisation of general practice journals in the SCI database.

Proportion of published primary health care protocols with published results in subsequent papers was decreasing

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the proportion of primary health care (PHC) randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols published in peer-reviewed journals that published results in subsequent papers in peer-reviewed journals; and whether this proportion changed over time.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched (last update June 2019) for RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals reporting primary outcome results for 620 protocols that were published up to 2014 and were retrieved in PubMed. We recorded the absolute number and the proportion of protocols with published results per year; and estimated whether the proportion changed over time.

RESULTS

Of the 620 published protocols, 525 (85%) disseminated their results through a published RCT by June 2019. The number of published protocols was increasing over time especially after 2001. However, the proportion of protocols per year with published results in subsequent papers was decreasing over time after 2002. Specifically, the proportion ranged from 86% to 96% for protocols published until 2010 while for those published from 2011 onward ranged from 76% to 86%. Mean time from protocol to results publication was 39 months (95% CI 37, 41).

CONCLUSION

Almost one-sixth of PHC trial protocols published in peer-reviewed journals did not publish their results in subsequent papers.