Articlediamond2021

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

William R. Phillips · Elizabeth Ann Sturgiss · Liesbeth Hunik · Paul Glasziou · Tim olde Hartman · Aaron Michael Orkin +3 more

20 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Sciences Research and Education Health Policy Implementation Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess opportunities to improve reporting of primary care (PC) research to better meet the needs of its varied users. METHODS: International, interprofessional online survey of PC researchers and users, 2018 to 2019. Respondents used Likert scales to rate frequency of difficulties in interpreting, synthesizing, and applying PC research reports. Free-text short answers were categorized by template analysis to record experiences, concerns, and suggestions. Areas of need were checked across existing reporting guidelines. RESULTS: Survey yielded 255 respondents across 24 nations, including 138 women (54.1%), 169 physicians (60%), 32 scientists (11%), 20 educators (7%), and 18 public health professionals (6%). Overall, 37.4% indicated difficulties using PC research reports "50% or more of the time." The most common problems were synthesizing findings (58%) and assessing generalizability (42%). Difficulty was reported by 49% for qualitative, 46% for mixed methods, and 38% for observational research. Most users wanted richer reporting of theoretical foundation (53.7%); teams, roles, and organization of care (53.4%); and patient involvement in the research process (52.7%). Few reported difficulties with ethics or disclosure of funding or conflicts. Free-text answers described special challenges in reporting PC research: context of clinical care and setting; practical details of interventions; patient-clinician and team relationships; and generalizability, applicability and impact in the great variety of PC settings. Cross-check showed that few current reporting guidelines focus on these needs. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to improve the reporting of PC research to make it more useful for its many users, suggesting a role for a PC research reporting guideline.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

References

2015Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2015STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2013The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development 2010Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network 2016A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network 2016Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014 2008Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research

Cited by

2020Mapping the literature on primary care research reporting: a scoping review 2022Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.