The Challenge to Build Research Capacity in Family Medicine: Is Our Discipline Ready?

James, Paul A.; Davis, Ardis; Borkan, Jeff

doi:10.1370/afm.1153

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Annähernd 20 % der Studien befassten sich mit Patientenbildung, -partizipation und -zufriedenheit. Als zukünftige Forschungspriorität wird von Vertretern der Allgemeinmedizin auch ein stärkerer Fokus auf PZM [17,18] gefordert.…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aktuelle Forschungsaktivitäten zur personenzentrierten Medizin in akademischen Instituten für Allgemeinmedizin in Deutschland und Österreich

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsunclassified

“…Abgrenzend zur Gesundheitsförderung ist es notwendig Projekte der Prävention zu erfassen. Gesundheitsförderung oder Prävention werden bei publizierten Studien der Allgemeinmedizin in Deutschland bisher nicht explizit aufgeführt [16][17][18][19].…”

Section: Resultsunclassified

Aktuelle Forschungsaktivitäten zur personenzentrierten Medizin in akademischen Instituten für Allgemeinmedizin in Deutschland und Österreich

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An Australian study around managing clinical data requirements for a compulsory national performance system defined the key features of “readiness” as staff skills, supportive management and a high level of trust from participating practices [ 61 ]. An American editorial commented that attempts to define research capacity within primary care, let alone readiness, have been incomplete although there is encouraging evidence of enthusiasm [ 62 ]. Another American study found that the key incentives for primary care doctors to collaborate with academic researchers were the potential to enact quality improvement, make a contribution to the body of knowledge, and intellectual stimulation [ 63 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining dimensions of research readiness: a conceptual model for primary care research networks

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRecruitment to research studies in primary care is challenging despite widespread implementation of electronic patient record (EPR) systems which potentially make it easier to identify eligible cases.MethodsLiterature review and applying the learning from a European research readiness assessment tool, the TRANSFoRm International Research Readiness instrument (TIRRE), to the context of the English NHS in order to develop a model to assess a practice’s research readiness.ResultsSeven dimensions of research readiness were identified: (1) Data readiness: Is there good data quality in EPR systems; (2) Record readiness: Are EPR data able to identify eligible cases and other study data; (3) Organisational readiness: Are the health system and socio-cultural environment supportive; (4) Governance readiness: Does the study meet legal and local health system regulatory compliance; (5) Study-specific readiness; (6) Business process readiness: Are business processes tilted in favour of participation: including capacity and capability to take on extra work, financial incentives as well as intangibles such as social and intellectual capital; (7) Patient readiness: Are systems in place to recruit patients and obtain informed consent?ConclusionsThe model might enable the development of interventions to increase participation in primary care-based research and become a tool to measure the progress of practice networks towards the most advanced state of readiness.

show abstract

“…Past work has documented definite strides forward but also often noted that the family medicine research enterprise falls short of what is needed to address intractable problems and optimally improve the health of the nation. 2,9,10 While studies have reported on individual faculty productivity, 11,12 residency program productivity, [13][14][15][16] numbers of publications, [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] amount of funding from national sources, [25][26][27][28] publication quality, 29 and research infrastructure and barriers to productivity, 30 the family medicine department research landscape has not been systematically assessed using a consistent conceptual framework. 6,10 The growth in capacity for research in family medicine is therefore difficult to describe as a longitudinal enterprise.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

Weidner

Peterson

Mainous

et al. 2019

Fam Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: Capacity for conducting family medicine research has grown significantly since the specialty was founded. Many calls to increase this capacity have been published, but there has been no consistent, systematic, and longitudinal assessment. This survey was designed to gather baseline data with an easily replicable set of measures associated with research productivity that can guide and monitor the impact of efforts to build research capacity in US departments of family medicine (DFMs). Methods: We surveyed family medicine department chairs regarding departmental research capacity using well-established empirical measures of capacity (trained research faculty, infrastructure, research leadership, and funding) and a self-assessment. We used bivariate analyses to assess correlation between the empirical measures and the self-assessed stage of research capacity. Results: Self-assessed capacity was significantly associated with every empirical measure. High-capacity departments have more research-trained faculty, more faculty effort, utilize more research “laboratories,” have more faculty serving on federal peer-review panels, more faculty as principal investigators, devote more internal funding to research, and garner larger amounts of funding from more external funding sources than moderate or minimal-capacity departments. Conclusions: US DFMs have made great strides over the past half century in building research capacity. However, much more capacity in family medicine and primary care research is needed to produce new knowledge necessary to improve the health and health care of the nation. Periodic measurement using the simple, replicable, and valid minimum measures of this study provides an opportunity to establish longitudinal tracking of change in research capacity in US DFMs.

show abstract

The Challenge to Build Research Capacity in Family Medicine: Is Our Discipline Ready?

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

Aktuelle Forschungsaktivitäten zur personenzentrierten Medizin in akademischen Instituten für Allgemeinmedizin in Deutschland und Österreich

Aktuelle Forschungsaktivitäten zur personenzentrierten Medizin in akademischen Instituten für Allgemeinmedizin in Deutschland und Österreich

Defining dimensions of research readiness: a conceptual model for primary care research networks

The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About