Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: An International Survey of Researchers

Evaluating strategies to recruit health researchers to participate in online survey research

BACKGROUND

Engaging researchers as research subjects is key to informing the development of effective and relevant research practices. It is important to understand how best to engage researchers as research subjects.

METHODS

A 24 factorial experiment, as part of a Multiphase Optimization Strategy, was performed to evaluate effects of four recruitment strategy components on participant opening of an emailed survey link and survey completion. Participants were members of three US-based national health research consortia. A stratified simple random sample was used to assign potential survey participants to one of 16 recruitment scenarios. Recruitment strategy components were intended to address both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation, including: $50 gift, $1,000 raffle, altruistic messaging, and egoistic messaging. Multivariable generalized linear regression analyses adjusting for consortium estimated component effects on outcomes. Potential interactions among components were tested. Results are reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Surveys were collected from June to December 2023. A total of 418 participants were included from the consortia, with final analytical sample of 400 eligible participants. Out of the final sample, 82% (341) opened the survey link and 35% (147) completed the survey. Altruistic messaging increased the odds of opening the survey (aOR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.35-2.69, p = 0.033), while egoistic messaging significantly reduced the odds of opening the survey (aOR 0.56, 95%CI 0.38-0.75, p = 0.08). The receipt of egoistic messaging increased the odds of completing the survey once opened (aOR 1.81, 95%CI: 1.39-2.23, p < 0.05). There was a significant negative interaction effect between the altruistic appeal and egoistic messaging strategies for survey completion outcome. Monetary incentives did not a have a significant impact on survey completion.

CONCLUSION

Intrinsic motivation is likely to be a greater driver of health researcher participation in survey research than extrinsic motivation. Altruistic and egoistic messaging may differentially impact initial interest and survey completion and when combined may lead to improved rates of recruitment, but not survey completion. Further research is needed to determine how to best optimize message content and whether the effects observed are modified by survey burden.

Pilot test of Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP)

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.

Research in family medicine: Contribution, priorities, and barriers in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Research in family medicine is important. The objectives of this study were to explore the contribution of family physicians, their attitudes and practice, and the barriers to research in family medicine in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted on Saudi family physicians in 2021. A self-administered questionnaire was sent to family physicians through WhatsApp and email. Information sought included demographic data, scientific profile, number of publications, reasons for conducting research, barriers to the conduct of research, attitudes and skills for the conduct of research, and priority areas of research. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 15. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Student's t-test was used to compare the means of two groups of physicians. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were performed to determine the association between categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of 313 family physicians filled the questionnaire; majority were male (65%), were married (90%), and worked under the Ministry of Health (73%). The total number of publications since graduation was 1165 papers with an average of 3.8 papers per physician. More than 70% were interested in conducting research, and more than two-thirds considered research important to the advancement of family medicine. One-third of the family physicians were currently involved in conducting research, while 30% were supervising at least one research project. The top five areas of priority were chronic diseases, mental health, health promotion, quality of healthcare, and medical education/training; whereas the top five obstacles to the conduct of research were the lack of time, lack of research environment, lack of financial and technical support, and the absence of skills.

CONCLUSION

Saudi family physicians make a good contribution to research. The researchers and research bodies should focus on identifying the priority areas for research in family medicine in the next few years and provide support to achieve some of the objectives of the National Vision of 2030.

Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research.

DESIGN

Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group.

SETTING

International online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses.

RESULTS

98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items).

CONCLUSION

Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research.

Promoting a research culture in family medicine: Five years of scholarly works and activities group

BACKGROUND

The professional advancement of Family Medicine faculty requires contributions in the form of clinical service, teaching, and scholarly activity. While teaching and clinical work are part of the everyday routine of faculty members, a research culture can be challenging to build.

METHODS

Our department started a Scholarly Works and Activities Group (SWAG). The group's aim is to promote a collegial, collaborative research culture in the department. Meetings occur monthly, and faculty have the opportunity to discuss scholarly projects with peers, as well as promotion/tenure goals. Minutes from each meeting are sent to all faculty members in the department. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if SWAG meetings impacted faculty scholarly activity. Data were collected on presentations, publications, and collaborations from Curriculum Vitae (CVs), and were compared between 5 years prior to the intervention and the 5 years since.

RESULTS

Results indicated increased scholarly activity in the time period during the SWAG group meetings. Faculty presentations increased by 34% while faculty publications more than doubled (221% increase), with publications constituting a small Cohen's d effect size. Interestingly, faculty collaboration did not increase. Two faculty members were promoted during the 5 years study period, and the total number of faculty who published went from three to eight.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a monthly SWAG meeting led to an increase in faculty peer reviewed publications. Furthermore, two faculty members were promoted during the time of the intervention. A monthly faculty meeting, even when brief, can help promote and build a research culture.

Assessing the performance of environmental management in academic research laboratories

Managing environmental risk is essential to ensure organisations minimise their impact on the environment, comply with environmental legislation and maintain their reputation in an increasingly environmentally aware society. Organisations frequently use management systems to plan and execute routine environmental assessments, however environmental impacts may still arise from routine activities or accidents that could be avoided by effective environmental management. Currently there is no method for an organisation to assess the level of awareness their employees have of activities that may lead to an environmental impact, or the level of uptake of environmental management processes. Therefore, the Environmental Management Performance Assessment (EMPA) process was developed to enable organisations to self-assess existing environmental management processes by survey of their employees. The EMPA process was aligned to key phases of the Deming Cycle and involves development and distribution of a survey to organisation employees. The responses are then used to recognise areas for improvement by progression through a bespoke flow chart integrated with the initial survey. This enables demonstration of how particular hazards arise from insufficient awareness at different stages in the Deming Cycle and how these hazards can have wider, reputational, economic, and legislative consequences. The process was trialled by surveying academic researchers on the environmental management processes in their laboratories as a sample set.

Mapping the literature on primary care research reporting: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite broad efforts to improve the reporting of biomedical research, no reporting guideline exists for primary care (PC) research. Little is known about current reporting practices or how well reports meet the needs of varied users in PC.

OBJECTIVE

To map the published literature on PC research reporting: quality, strengths and weaknesses, recommendations and efforts to improve reporting.

METHODS

Scoping review of literature across seven major databases and search engines to identify all articles on PC research reporting published in English, 2000-20. An additional secondary search of references of these 25 articles and consideration of expert panel suggestions. Structured data extraction by multiple reviewers using a predetermined form.

RESULTS

Search yielded 2847 unique titles, of which 126 underwent full-text review and 25 met inclusion criteria. Publications included opinion pieces (9), systematic reviews (5), methods articles (2), literature reviews (4), qualitative studies (4) and surveys (1). Studies focussed on a variety of topics and research methods. All publications identified the need for improved reporting and recommended items to include in reports. Most commonly, publications cited the need for more detailed reporting on the context of study interventions, clinical settings and health care systems. Most publications endorsed the use of reporting guidelines and recognized the unique needs of PC research reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Published research and opinion identify unique needs for PC research reports and support new guidance to improve the validity, generalizability and application of study findings.