TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinician use of primary care research reports
AU - Phillips, William R.
AU - Sturgiss, Elizabeth
AU - Yang, Angela
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Hartman, Tim Olde
AU - Orkin, Aaron
AU - Russell, Grant M.
AU - Weel, Chris Van
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Board of Family Medicine. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Purpose: To assess how primary care practitioners use reports of general health care (GHC) and primary care (PC) research and how well reports deliver what they need to inform clinical practice Methods: International, interprofessional online survey, 2019, of primary care clinicians who see patients at least half time. Respondents used frequency scales to report how often they access both GHC and PC research and how frequently reports meet needs. Free-Text short comments recorded comments and suggestions. Results: Survey yielded 252 respondents across 29 nations, 55% (121) women, including 88% (195) physicians, nurses 5% (11), and physician assistants 3% (7). Practitioners read research reports frequently but find they usually fail to meet their needs. For PC research, 33% (77) accessed original reports in academic journals weekly or daily, and 36% found reports meet needs "frequently" or "always." They access reports of GHC research slightly more often but find them somewhat less useful. Conclusions: PC practitioners access original research in academic journals frequently but find reports meet information needs less than half the time. PC research reflects the unique PC setting and so reporting has distinct focus, needs, and challenges. Practitioners desire improved reporting of study context, interventions, relationships, generalizability, and implementation. ( J Am Board Fam Med 2021;34:648 660.).
AB - Purpose: To assess how primary care practitioners use reports of general health care (GHC) and primary care (PC) research and how well reports deliver what they need to inform clinical practice Methods: International, interprofessional online survey, 2019, of primary care clinicians who see patients at least half time. Respondents used frequency scales to report how often they access both GHC and PC research and how frequently reports meet needs. Free-Text short comments recorded comments and suggestions. Results: Survey yielded 252 respondents across 29 nations, 55% (121) women, including 88% (195) physicians, nurses 5% (11), and physician assistants 3% (7). Practitioners read research reports frequently but find they usually fail to meet their needs. For PC research, 33% (77) accessed original reports in academic journals weekly or daily, and 36% found reports meet needs "frequently" or "always." They access reports of GHC research slightly more often but find them somewhat less useful. Conclusions: PC practitioners access original research in academic journals frequently but find reports meet information needs less than half the time. PC research reflects the unique PC setting and so reporting has distinct focus, needs, and challenges. Practitioners desire improved reporting of study context, interventions, relationships, generalizability, and implementation. ( J Am Board Fam Med 2021;34:648 660.).
KW - Biomedical Research
KW - Evidence-Based Medicine
KW - Family Medicine
KW - Health Communication
KW - Health Services Research
KW - Medical Informatics
KW - Primary Health Care
KW - Publishing
KW - Research Design
KW - Research Report
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Translational Medical Research
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107810294&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3122/JABFM.2021.03.200436
DO - 10.3122/JABFM.2021.03.200436
M3 - Article
SN - 1557-2625
VL - 34
SP - 648
EP - 660
JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
IS - 3
ER -