Primary care research: does it defy definition?

Amisi, James Akiruga; Downing, Raymond

doi:10.1017/s1463423617000652

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Desarrollar habilidades de gestión de proyectos y líneas de investigación, construir redes, aprender a supervisar y estar dispuesto a asumir roles institucionales 14 , 18 . Todo ello para conseguir que importe la investigación que se realice en el propio contexto de AP, que sea relevante para quienes trabajamos en AP y que genere el conocimiento necesario para tomar decisiones y reducir la incertidumbre en la práctica clínica, sin basarse exclusivamente en aspectos biomédicos 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Mapa bibliométrico de la investigación realizada en atención primaria en España durante el periodo 2013-2017

Hidalgo¹,

Martínez²,

Álvarez³

et al. 2020

Atención Primaria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen Objetivo Describir la producción científica española de atención primaria durante 2013-2017, analizando su distribución geográfica, factor de impacto, áreas de investigación y participación de diferentes sectores institucionales. Diseño Estudio observacional bibliométrico. Participantes Publicaciones indexadas en Medline. Mediciones principales Revista y año de publicación, primer/último autor, centro de trabajo y comunidad autónoma. Se clasificaron los artículos según su contenido. El factor de impacto fue obtenido de la base de análisis bibliométrico Journal Citation Reports . Resultados Incluidos 980 documentos. El índice de transitoriedad fue 78,8%. La mayoría de los artículos (43,2%) procedía de centros de salud, originados en unidades o institutos de investigación, desde 14,9% en 2013 hasta 19,1% en 2017. El 63,3% se clasificaron como «aspectos clínicos». El 19,3% fueron publicados en la revista Atención Primaria, el 40,6% en revistas extranjeras y el 72,4% en revistas con factor de impacto, siendo esta proporción significativamente inferior (p <0,001) en los procedentes de centros de salud (59,6%) o de unidades docentes/gerencias/servicios de salud (70,0%) respecto a los originados en unidades/institutos de investigación (93,1%) o en universidades (89,0%). En relación al número de habitantes (documentos/100.000 habitantes), las comunidades más productivas fueron Cataluña (4,2), Aragón (3,9) e Islas Baleares (3,3). Conclusiones En las publicaciones de atención primaria existe gran diversidad tanto en áreas de investigación como en las revistas donde se publican. La mayoría proceden de centros de salud, tratan aspectos clínicos y se publican en revistas españolas. Se observan diferencias en el volumen de producción científica entre comunidades autónomas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Mapa bibliométrico de la investigación realizada en atención primaria en España durante el periodo 2013-2017

Hidalgo¹,

Martínez²,

Álvarez³

et al. 2020

Atención Primaria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Primary studies of any design, except case studies, that provide information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff (for example doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, receptionists) and providers (for example primary care practices, primary care networks, medical health insurance providers) to adult patients and carers will be eligible for inclusion. As ‘primary care’ varies across the world and has no single agreed definition, 11 the authors will include all studies except those on emergency, urgent, or acute care or where the participants were inpatients. This will allow the authors to review all available evidence relevant to primary care provision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Nankervis,

Huntley,

Whiting

et al. 2023

BJGP Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAfter testing, ensuring test results are communicated and actioned is important for patient safety, with failure or delay in diagnosis the commonest cause of malpractice claims in primary care worldwide. Identifying interventions to improve test communication from the decision to test through to sharing of results has important implications for patient safety, GP workload and patient engagement.AimTo assess the factors around communication of blood test results between primary care providers (eg, GPs, nurses, reception staff) and their patients and carers.Design & settingA mixed methods systematic review including primary studies involving communication of blood test results in primary care.MethodThe review will use a segregated convergent synthesis method. Qualitative information will be synthesised using a meta-aggregative approach and quantitative data will be meta-analysed or synthesised if pooling of studies is appropriate and data is available. If not data will be presented in tabular and descriptive summary form.ConclusionThis review has the potential to provide conclusions about blood test result communication interventions and factors important to stakeholders including barriers and facilitators to improved communication.

show abstract

Perceived importance and interest in research by Chilean primary care providers

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Primary care providers (PCPs) are relevant stakeholders for primary care research (PCR). Objective We report the perceived importance and interest in PCR of a national sample of Chilean PCPs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study targeting Chilean PCPs. An electronic survey assessing perceived relevance of PCR, research training and experience, training interests, and demographics was disseminated through emails and WhatsApp messages. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals for high interest in PCR, high interest in using research methods, and high interest in receiving research training, and predictors of these outcomes. Results A total of 387 providers completed the online survey. Only 26.4% of PCPs had research experience as a principal or co-investigator. However, most clinicians perceived PCR as very important (92.5%) and were interested in using research methods (90.7%) and receiving training (94.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in these perceptions between provider’s discipline, role, sex, age, and geographical location after adjusting for covariates. Conclusions Despite few Chilean PCPs have research training, a large majority perceive it as important, are interested in using it in their practice and would like to receive training.

show abstract

Primary care research: does it defy definition?

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

Mapa bibliométrico de la investigación realizada en atención primaria en España durante el periodo 2013-2017

Mapa bibliométrico de la investigación realizada en atención primaria en España durante el periodo 2013-2017

Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Perceived importance and interest in research by Chilean primary care providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About