Published research in primary care: original papers in the US and UK, 1996

Comparison of research trends in korean and international family medicine in journals of family medicine

Background

Research is important for the development of family medicine as a professional field in primary care. The aim of this study was to suggest directions for the development of family medicine research by analyzing research trends in original papers published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine (KJFM) and international journals.

Methods

We investigated original research papers published in KJFM and 4 international journals from August 2009 to July 2010. Analysis was conducted according to research topics, authors, methods, participants, and data sources.

Results

'Clinical research' was the most common research topic in both the KJFM (88.3%) and international journals (57.3%); however, international journals had more studies in other domains ('education and research,' 'health service,' and 'family medicine'). More authors other than family physicians participated in international journals than in the KJFM (58% and 3.3%, respectively). Most studies were 'cross-sectional' in KJFM (77.0%) and international journals (51.5%): however, the latter had more 'qualitative' studies, 'cohort' studies, and 'systematic reviews' than the former. The largest study population was 'visitors of health promotion center' in the KJFM and 'outpatients' in international journals. Most of the study sources were 'survey' and 'medical records' in both.

Conclusion

There were limitations of diversity in the papers of the KJFM. Future investigation on papers of other than family medicine journals should be planned to assess research trends of family physicians.

Assessment of publication output in the field of general practice and family medicine and by general practitioners and general practice institutions

PURPOSE

The discipline of family medicine (FM) lacks a comprehensive methodology, which can be applied as a standard for assessing overall research output in both the field of FM and by general practitioners (GPs)/general practice institutions. It was the aim of this study to develop a sensitive search strategy for assessing publication output in the field of FM independent of the author's profession or affiliation and by GPs/general practice institutions independent of their field of scientific interest.

METHODS

Literature searches limited to the year 2005 were conducted in PubMed and ISI Web of Sciences (ISI WoS). In PubMed, all relevant MeSH terms were used. Search terms possibly contained in the author's affiliations have been collected. In ISI WoS, the same entry terms including their abbreviations and plural forms were applied. The final queries were validated by manual review and matching results with selected FM journals.

RESULTS

A comprehensive list of combined search terms could be defined. For the field of general practice/FM more publications could be retrieved in PubMed. Almost twice as many publications by GPs/general practice institutions could be retrieved in ISI WoS, where--in contrast to PubMed--the affiliation is documented for all authors.

CONCLUSIONS

To quantitatively assess publication output in the field of FM, PubMed was identified as the preferable database. To assess publication output by GPs/general practice institutions, the ISI WoS is recommended as the preferable database. Apparently, the ISI WoS is more suitable to compare the research productivity of different countries, authors or institutions.

Is qualitative research scientific, or merely relevant? Research-interested primary care and hospital physicians' appraisal of abstracts

OBJECTIVE

To compare the assessments of primary care and hospital physicians of quantitative and qualitative research abstracts, and to analyse what they put into 'scientific accuracy'.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

Two fictive research abstracts, one quantitative the other qualitative in design, were constructed. Randomly selected Swedish physicians were asked to appraise the two designs for linguistic clarity, clinical relevance, interest value, trustworthiness and scientific accuracy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

286 primary care and 396 hospital physicians delivered complete answers. Their assessments were analysed and compared using Pearson's chi-square test, multivariate logistic regression analyses and Spearman's rho.

RESULTS

Primary care physicians and hospital physicians judged the quantitative abstract similarly. More primary care physicians than hospital physicians appreciated the qualitative abstract. Both primary care and hospital physicians assessed scientific accuracy of the quantitative abstract more highly than clinical relevance, while the qualitative abstract was appreciated more for its relevance than for its scientific accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicates that qualitative research is valued for its relevance, but is considered lacking in scientific accuracy. To encourage high scientific quality and relevance in medical research, we need to enhance knowledge about qualitative methods, and their scientific guidelines, especially when complex and comprehensive phenomena are to be studied.