The case for interdepartmental research in primary care

Synergising Research and Service Activities at Swiss Research Institutions to Accelerate Sustainable Development

Research that takes a pro-active role in bridging science and practice holds promise to accelerate progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. While passing on best practices outside of academia, inspiration can be drawn from pressing global challenges. Using Swiss research institutions that maintain partnerships with low- and middle-income countries as a case study, the purpose of this study was to identify synergies between research and services for development (R&S4D). We mapped Swiss research institutions that host both types of activities and identified the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) linked to their hybrid models. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives from the identified institutions, and data were analysed using the Framework Method. Strengths of combining R&S4D were observed on four levels: (i) individual (i.e., high employability outside academia); (ii) project (i.e., higher quality and practical relevance); (iii) entity (i.e., flexibility regarding funders, resources, and partners); and (iv) sustainable development (i.e., more impactful work). The main weaknesses were named as a decrease in the scientific quality of research projects specifically and inefficiency/lack of feasibility of implementation services. A lack of career paths and positions for individuals who wish to pursue academic research alongside services was identified as a threat. The Universities of Applied Sciences account for the largest share of hybrid positions in Switzerland; increasing their currently limited funding for research and international activities represents an opportunity. Our reserch adds a unique viewpoint to the discussion on the role of academia in supporting society to move towards sustainable development. It does so by exploring whether and how the concept of multisectoriality can work as an integral part of academia at the individual and the institutional level.

Publication of research presented at STFM and NAPCRG conferences

PURPOSE

Presentations of research are important in the dissemination of new knowledge, but they do not reach the same audience as research published in journals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of presentations at recent major primary care research conferences that have become published.

METHODS

Oral and poster presentations for completed and work-in-progress projects from the 2007 and 2008 North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM) annual conferences were included in the analysis. The first presenter for each presentation was searched on PubMed, and titles and abstracts for presentations were compared for content to titles and abstracts of potential matches found on PubMed. We analyzed the proportion of presentations that were published in peer-reviewed journals, mean time to publication, and the proportions of the type of journal in which the article appeared (family medicine vs other) were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 1,329 presentations included in the study. Overall, 34.4% of projects presented were also published. More oral presentations (42.9%) were published than were poster presentations (25.3%) (P <.001). Mean time to publication was 15.4 months. Oral presentations were published more quickly (13.7 months) than poster presentations (18.6 months) (P <.001). Published reports appeared in 192 different journals. Family medicine journals accounted for 36.5% of published.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of all presentations at STFM and NAPCRG conferences were published in journals indexed in PubMed. Time to publication was comparable to that of other specialties. Fewer than 2 of every 5 reports were published are in a family medicine journal, suggesting vast breadth in family medicine research. Family medicine academicians need to refocus efforts on transforming presentations into published articles in peer-reviewed journals for broader dissemination of research findings.

Psychosocial Factors in Pediatric Asthma

This review discusses evidence-based perspectives on psychosocial factors in pediatric asthma. Future directions for inquiry and clinical management also are addressed.

The double helix of activity and scholarship: building a medical education career with limited resources

CONTEXT

Creating respected scholarship from educational and clinical activities is challenging for medical school faculty members. In the USA and Europe, criteria for 'scholarship' has broadened and enriched. However, in developing countries, promotion systems generally continue to emphasise traditional laboratory or clinical research.

OBJECTIVE

This paper sets forth a broad conception of scholarship and provides international distribution venues that reinforce the importance of scholarly activity corresponding to clinical and educational work.

METHODS

Information sources about non-traditional scholarship included 50 medical school faculty from 20 economically developing nations plus senior faculty from throughout the USA. Resources for distribution venues were drawn from a citation index search, a literature search and Google.

RESULTS

The authors provide resources for faculty advancement, including examples of non-traditional scholarship that meet rigorous criteria, and a comprehensive list of venues for the dissemination of educational materials and studies. They give a relative value process for academic work to assist faculty in developing educational scholarship. Finally, they propose a double helix model for academic advancement, consisting of 2 congruent helices with the same axis, 1 representing educational, service or clinical activity and the other scholarly achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

These materials and the double helix model will support faculty and promotion committees, especially those from schools that have not yet broadened their view of scholarship, to envisage a realistic starting point and see how educational and clinical activities can generate internationally recognised, high-quality scholarship.

Facilitating collaboration among academic generalist disciplines: a call to action

To meet its population's health needs, the United States must have a coherent system to train and support primary care physicians. This goal can be achieved only though genuine collaboration between academic generalist disciplines. Academic general pediatrics, general internal medicine, and family medicine may be hampering this effort and their own futures by lack of collaboration. This essay addresses the necessity of collaboration among generalist physicians in research, medical education, clinical care, and advocacy. Academic generalists should collaborate by (1) making a clear decision to collaborate, (2) proactively discussing the flow of money, (3) rewarding collaboration, (4) initiating regular generalist meetings, (5) refusing to tolerate denigration of other generalist disciplines, (6) facilitating strategic planning for collaboration among generalist disciplines, and (7) learning from previous collaborative successes and failures. Collaboration among academic generalists will enhance opportunities for trainees, primary care research, and advocacy; conserve resources; and improve patient care.