Strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research: A systematic review.
capacity-building
family physicians
primary care
research engagement
review
strategies
Journal
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
ISSN: 1365-2753
Titre abrégé: J Eval Clin Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609066
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
revised:
14
06
2022
received:
11
04
2022
accepted:
22
06
2022
pubmed:
8
7
2022
medline:
18
1
2023
entrez:
7
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Moving towards high quality primary health care, involving family physicians in primary care research becomes an essential prerequisite to ensures a better adoption and routinization of patient-centred, evidence-based practices. To assess the effectiveness of strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research. We systematically reviewed evidence for strategies used to engage family physicians in primary care research. We included any study design that reported at least one quantitative outcome. Searches were carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Pairs of reviewers independently screened for publications in two stages using standardized forms. We performed data analysis through a narrative synthesis approach, using the Reasoned-action approach as framework. A total of 4859 deduped records were identified of which 41 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. The majority of studies (n = 35) investigated family physician's participation in a research project. They aimed to influence family physicians' intention (n = 7) or their ability (n = 3) to participate in a research project. Three types of strategies (compensation/incentive, recruitment by a peer and support from a research network or an academic institution) demonstrated a significant increase in participation rate. Methodological quality of the studies evaluating these strategies was relatively low. Few studies (n = 6) targeted research capacity-building programmes with no significant impact noted. Numerous strategies have been used to engage family physicians in primary care research, but few studies evaluated their effectiveness in a rigorous way. The protocol of this review was registered with the SPOR Evidence Alliance and on the PROSPERO platform (registration number: CRD42020189322).
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
233-249Subventions
Organisme : SPOR Evidence Alliance
Organisme : Réseau-1 Québec
Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Canada. Gd. À propos des soins de santé primaires. Gouvernement du Canada. 2012. https://www.canada.ca/fr/sante-canada/services/soins-sante-primaires/propos-soins-sante-primaires.html
Hutchison B, Levesque J-F, Strumpf E, Coyle N. Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):256-288.
Starfield B. Primary care: an increasingly important contributor to effectiveness, equity, and efficiency of health services. SESPAS report 2012. Gac Sanit. 2012;26(suppl 1):20-26.
World Health Organization. Primary health care-now more than ever. 2008.
Jones R. Primary care research: ends and means. Fam Pract. 2000;17(1):1-4.
Westfall JM, Wittenberg HR, Liaw W. Time to invest in primary care research-commentary on findings from an independent congressionally mandated study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36:1-4.
Mold JW, Green LA. Primary care research: revisiting its definition and rationale. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(3):206-208.
Pimlott N, Katz A. Ecology of family physicians' research engagement. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62(5):385-390.
Kothari A, McCutcheon C, Graham ID. Defining integrated knowledge translation and moving forward: a response to recent commentaries. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017;6(5):299-300.
Gagliardi AR, Berta W, Kothari A, Boyko J, Urquhart R. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2016;11:38.
Hoffmann AE, Leege EK, Plane MB, et al. Clinician and staff perspectives on participating in practice-based research (PBR): a report from the wisconsin research and education network (WREN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(5):639-648.
Sahin D, Yaffe MJ, Sussman T, McCusker J. A mixed studies literature review of family physicians' participation in research. Fam Med. 2014;46(7):503-514.
Messner DA, Moloney R, Warriner AH, Wright NC, Foster PJ, Saag KG. Understanding practice-based research participation: the differing motivations of engaged vs. non-engaged clinicians in pragmatic clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2016;4:136-140.
Sullivan F, Butler C, Cupples M, Kinmonth A-L. Primary care research networks in the United Kingdom. BMJ. 2007;334(7603):1093-1094.
Tierney WM, Oppenheimer CC, Hudson BL, et al. A national survey of primary care practice-based research networks. the. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(3):242-250.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:1-8.
Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132-140.
Fishbein M. A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):834-844.
Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007;7:16.
McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:40-46.
Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC methods programme. 2006.
Abdulaziz K, Brehaut J, Taljaard M, et al. National survey of physicians to determine the effect of unconditional incentives on response rates of physician postal surveys. BMJ Open. 2015;5(2):e007166.
Baron G, P De Wals, Milord F. Cost-effectiveness of a lottery for increasing physicians' responses to a mail survey. Eval Health Prof. 2001;24(1):47-52.
Bergk V, Gasse C, Schnell R, Haefeli WE. Mail surveys: obsolescent model or valuable instrument in general practice research? Swiss Med Wkly. 2005;135(13-14):189-191.
Berkhout C, Vandaele-Bétancourt M, Robert S, et al. Enhancing field GP engagement in hospital-based studies. Rationale, design, main results and participation in the diagest 3-GP motivation study. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:63.
Borgiel AE, Dunn EV, Lamont CT, et al. Recruiting family physicians as participants in research. Fam Pract. 1989;6(3):168-172.
Deehan A, Templeton L, Taylor C, Drummond C, Strang J. The effect of cash and other financial inducements on the response rate of general practitioners in a national postal study. Br J Gen Pract. 1997;47(415):87-90.
Elliott T, Laurence C, McCaul M. Fostering registrar research-a model to overcome barriers. Aust Fam Physician. 2010;39(12):963-968.
Gerbert B, Goldstein K, Holden M, Hughes-Stone M, Guillion DS. Recruiting physicians for a continuing medical education research study. Mobius. 1984;4(2):27-33.
Goldhamer ME, Cohen AP, Bates DW, et al. Protecting an endangered species: training physicians to conduct clinical research. Acad Med. 2009;84(4):439-445.
Groenewegen PP, Gres S, Schafer W. General practitioners' participation in a large, multicountry combined general practitioner-patient survey: recruitment procedures and participation rate. Int J Family Med. 2016;2016:4929432.
Herber OR, Schnepp W, Rieger MA. Recruitment rates and reasons for community physicians' non-participation in an interdisciplinary intervention study on leg ulceration. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:61.
Herrmann M, Lichte T, Von Unger H, et al. Faculty development in general practice in Germany: experiences, evaluations, perspectives. Med Teach. 2007;29(2-3):219-224.
Heywood A, Mudge P, Ring I, Sanson-Fisher R. Reducing systematic bias in studies of general practitioners: the use of a medical peer in the recruitment of general practitioners in research. Fam Pract. 1995;12(2):227-231.
Hogg W, Kendall C, Muggah E, Mayo-Bruinsma L, Ziebell L. Fostering excellence: roles, responsibilities, and expectations of new family physician clinician investigators. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(2):e105-e112.
Jiwa M, Coker AEO, Bagley J, Freeman J, Coleman M. Surveying general practitioners: a new avenue. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(3):319-324.
Jones KM, Dixon ME, Falkingham L, Piteman L, Dixon JB. Barriers to recruitment of professionals into a general practice childhood obesity program. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(2):156-161.
Leysen B, Van den Eynden B, Janssens A, Wens J. Recruiting general practitioners for palliative care research in primary care: real-life barriers explained. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):40.
Liira H, Koskela T, Thulesius H, Pitkala K. Encouraging primary care research: evaluation of a one-year, doctoral clinical epidemiology research course. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2016;34(1):89-96.
Maheux B, Legault C, Lambert J. Increasing response rates in physicians' mail surveys: an experimental study. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(5):638-639.
McKinn S, Bonner C, Jansen J, McCaffery K. Recruiting general practitioners as participants for qualitative and experimental primary care studies in Australia. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(3):354-359.
McLaren B, Shelley J. Response rates of victorian general practitioners to a mailed survey on miscarriage: randomised trial of a prize and two forms of introduction to the research. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24(4):360-364.
Nicholls K, Chapman K, Shaw T, et al. Enhancing response rates in physician surveys: the limited utility of electronic options. Health Serv Res. 2011;46(5):1675-1682.
Park ER, MacDonald Gross NA, Goldstein MG, et al. Physician recruitment for a community-based smoking cessation intervention. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(1):70.
Parkinson A, Jorm L, Douglas KA, et al. Recruiting general practitioners for surveys: reflections on the difficulties and some lessons learned. Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):254-258.
Pearl A, Wright S, Gamble G, Doughty R, Sharpe N. Randomised trials in general practice-a New Zealand experience in recruitment. N Z Med J. 2003;116(1186):U681.
Reid CM, Nelson M, Beckinsale P, et al. Feasibility of conducting cardiovascular outcome research in Australian general practice: results from the ANBP2 pilot study. Australian national blood pressure study. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1997;24(5):370-373.
Reid CM, Ryan P, Nelson M, et al. General practitioner participation in the second Australian national blood pressure study (ANBP2). Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2001;28(8):663-667.
Ried K, Montgomery BD, Stocks NP, Farmer EA. General practice research training: impact of the Australian registrar research workshop on research skills, confidence, interest and involvement of participants, 2002−2006. Fam Pract. 2008;25(2):119-126.
Robertson J, Walkom EJ, McGettigan P. Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2005;14(8):571-577.
Robitaille H, Legare F, Tre G. A systematic process for recruiting physician-patient dyads in practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med: JABFM. 2014;27(6):740-749.
Rokstad K, Fugelli P. How to succeed in a multipractice study. Fam Med. 1993;25(7):461-464.
Scott A, Jeon SH, Joyce CM, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:126.
Shah S, Roydhouse JK, Toelle BG, et al. Recruiting and retaining general practitioners to a primary care asthma-intervention study in Australia. Aus J Prim Health. 2014;20(1):98-102.
Shelton BJ, Wofford JL, Gosselink CA, et al. Recruitment and retention of physicians for primary care research. J Community Health. 2002;27(2):79-89.
Signorelli C, Wakefield CE, Fardell JE, et al. Recruiting primary care physicians to qualitative research: experiences and recommendations from a childhood cancer survivorship study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(1):1-8.
Sin DD, Man SF, Cowie RL, et al. Recruitment for a provincial asthma study. Participation of network and non-network primary care physicians. Can Fam Physician. 2004;50:1251-1254.
Temple-Smith M, Mulvey G, Doyle W. Maximising response rates in a survey of general practitioners. Lessons from a victorian survey on sexually transmissible diseases. Aust Fam Physician. 1998;27(suppl 1):S15-S18.
Temte JL, Grasmick ME. Recruiting primary care clinicians for public health and bioterrorism surveillance. WMJ. 2009;108(2):104-108.
Ward J, Bruce T, Holt P, D'Este K, Sladden M. Labour-saving strategies to maintain survey response rates: a randomised trial. Aus N Z J Public Health. 1998;22(3 suppl):394-396.
Wetzel D, Himmel W, Heidenreich R, et al. Participation in a quality of care study and consequences for generalizability of general practice research. Fam Pract. 2005;22(4):458-464.
Williamson MK, Pirkis J, Pfaff JJ, et al. Recruiting and retaining GPs and patients in intervention studies: the DEPS-GP project as a case study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:42.
Rendell JM, Merritt RK, Geddes J. Incentives and disincentives to participation by clinicians in randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2010(2):1-22.
Flodgren G, Eccles MP, Shepperd S, Scott A, Parmelli E, Beyer FR. An overview of reviews evaluating the effectiveness of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (7):CD009255. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009255
Fagnan LJ, Handley MA, Rollins N, Mold J. Voices from left of the dial: reflections of practice-based researchers. J Am Board Fam Med. 2010;23(4):442-451.