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

Phillips, William R.; Louden, Diana; Sturgiss, Elizabeth

doi:10.1093/fampra/cmaa143

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The round 1 survey presented a list of potential reporting items drawn from the results of our prior CRISP research: a needs assessment survey among the international PC research community, 4 a survey focusing on the needs of practicing clinicians 3 and a scoping review. 2 ( table 1 ) In each of the surveys, we asked respondents for their views on what could be improved in PC research reporting and what items are important to include in research reports so that they are useful for their own research and/or clinical practice. We extracted the free-text comments from the two surveys, and EAS, WRP and PP synthesised the comments into an initial list of potential reporting items.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 4 †Lewis-Beck et al 19 ‡Phillips et al . 3 §Phillips et al 2 PC, primary care; WONCA, World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…PC research uses an array of research methods and has developed approaches that emphasise patient-centred, problem-oriented care of whole patients. 2 Despite the breadth in topics and approaches that are employed in PC research, there are underlying common elements that are always needed to make PC research useful for researchers, clinicians, patients and policy-makers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Primary care (PC) is a distinct model of healthcare that can improve patient and population health,1 and PC has its own set of research questions that are of interest to the PC community. PC research uses an array of research methods and has developed approaches that emphasise patient-centred, problem-oriented care of whole patients 2. Despite the breadth in topics and approaches that are employed in PC research, there are underlying common elements that are always needed to make PC research useful for researchers, clinicians, patients and policy-makers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CRISP research has studied current practices, assessed needs and collated ideas for improvement through a scoping review2 and surveys of PC researchers and clinicians 3 4. These studies have demonstrated the need to improve PC research reporting, documented a desire for research reporting guidelines tailored to the needs and characteristics of PC research and generated lists of specific suggestions for items that would make reports more useful 2–4.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveReporting 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.DesignDelphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group.SettingInternational online survey.ParticipantsInterdisciplinary PC researchers and research users.Main outcome measuresWe 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.Results98/116 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).ConclusionOur 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.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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

Sturgiss,

Phillips

2023

Prim Health Care Res Dev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Health outcomes in primary care: a 20-year evidence map of randomized controlled trials

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To quantify the different types of health outcomes assessed as primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary care (PC) setting during the last 20 years and identify whether potential gaps exist in specific types of health care and types of intervention. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2000 to September 2020 for published RCTs in PC. We recorded characteristics of eligible studies and mapped evidence by health outcome category (patient health outcomes, health services outcomes); and for each outcome category, by types of health care (preventive, acute, chronic, palliative), and by types of intervention (drug, behavioural, on structure, and on process). For RCTs assessing patient health outcomes as primary outcomes, we further mapped using the quality-of-care dimensions, that is, effectiveness, safety, and patient-centredness. Results Of the 518 eligible RCTs in PC, 357 (68.9%) evaluated a patient health outcome as the primary outcome, and 161 (31.1%) evaluated only health services outcomes as primary outcomes. Many focused on population with chronic illness (224 trials; 43.2%) and evaluated interventions on processes of health care (239 trials; 46.1%). Research gaps identified include preventive and palliative care, behavioural interventions, and safety and patient-centredness outcomes as primary outcomes. Conclusion Our evidence map showed research gaps in certain types of health care and interventions. It also showed research gaps in assessing safety and measures to place patient at the centre of health care delivery as primary outcomes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

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

Health outcomes in primary care: a 20-year evidence map of randomized controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About