Professor Jane Gunn, PhD from the School of General Practitioners at the University of Melbourne and leader of the primary care research group, and her team explored the motivations of Australian general practitioners to participate in research and the benefits they gained from participating in the research process. In this issue of the public account, the results of this research are translated and released, and we look forward to learning from them together.
Characteristics of general practitioners participating in the study
Among the 598 general practitioners invited to participate in the study, 53 general practitioners (8.9%) agreed to participate in the study, and 33 general practitioners were eventually recruited into the study. . An additional eight participants were recruited through personal networks. Thirty-four GPs participated in the randomized controlled trial study to reduce overweight children by surveying their lives, diet and recreation and completed the baseline survey, 30 GPs conducted the intervention and 29 completed all surveys .
Research experience
Most GPs have not been involved in research projects before. In the past 1 year, most general practitioners had not received formal training in research methods. The academic qualifications of participating general practitioners are lower than those of master's degree .
What do GPs hope to gain from participating in this study?
In response to the question “What do you hope to get out of this?”, most GPs said they were eager to gain relevant knowledge and clinical skills. Only 5 GPs mentioned that they would like to know about research methods. 17 GPs stated that their expectations were met during their participation in the study. Reasons for GPs' unmet expectations include uncertainty about expectations and higher practice demands for new diagnostic and treatment technologies. One general practitioner claimed that his benefits from participating in the study were higher than his expectations. Five general practitioners expressed the difficulties they faced participating in this study, which mainly revolved around the implementation of the intervention, such as “I was surprised that none of the 3 families I surveyed participated in the follow-up study”, “I found that putting theoretical knowledge into practice "We are facing many difficulties in practice" and "I feel very negative and don't know how to conduct consultation." The most common reasons given by GPs for participating in research were to learn new clinical skills, update knowledge and reflect on clinical work.
Contribution of GPs to research as participants
The research team aims to make GP participants important contributors to research and survey participants to assess contribution. While most reviews dealt with the role of GPs in facilitating research at a practice level, many GPs played a role in developing the home materials and the intervention itself.
Capacity of GP researchers to carry out research
The research team is interested in capturing content about how participation in the LEAP study changes the capacity of GPs to conduct research. GPs were asked: "How has your involvement in the LEAP study changed your understanding of general practice research so far?" One GP said "Research is not for me!"; another GP said The doctor said the experience did not change his understanding of the research. However, 22 other GPs commented that they had a better understanding of the research process, challenges and practicalities, for example “A lot of research work will ultimately help us understand and plan for the future, it is complex, time-consuming, but It’s ultimately beneficial.”
Will GPs take part in the LEAP study again?
Perhaps the most telling question about participation in a randomized trial setting of a complex intervention is whether GPs would participate again. Twenty-eight of the 29 participants who completed the questions indicated that they would participate again in research projects such as LEAP.
Original link
https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/200805/24177
The LEAP study is an intervention trial that introduces a new, brief strategy to address childhood overweight in primary care settings. A surprising finding of the study was that a small number of GPs expressed interest in participating, listed as having a special interest in paediatrics.
Due to funding and time constraints, the recruitment of participants was limited. Only a few general practitioners responded to the invitation, and the range of options was small. Although recruitment was small (30-40 participants), all general practitioners remained in the study for more than 2 years.The
findings suggest that while only a small number of GPs actually took part in the study, those who did find the experience worthwhile. This study shows that GP participation in research is motivated by a desire to update knowledge and clinical skills, gain opportunities for reflection, help current patients, and an altruistic perspective on helping others in the long term, rather than exclusively the promise of 'rewards' such as quality Guaranteed and continuing medical education credits. The study was limited by the small sample of GPs and the following: most GPs invited to participate declined to participate; non-participants may have had more negative attitudes towards the study than participating GPs.
Research currently does not play a major role in the careers of Australian GPs, but community-based clinical research relies on those same GPs who conduct similar studies such as LEAP. If general practice research is to take place in Australia, supporting GP engagement is essential and will be guided by high quality community-based clinical research. Researchers should ensure that they clearly articulate how research projects link to clinical benefits for GPs and patients, and studies should provide participating GPs with space to reflect on current clinical work. Australia needs to have the strong clinical research culture required in the healthcare system before dedicated funding is provided for general practice research infrastructure in the community, such as practice-based research networks.
END
Excellent content recommendation
Recruitment
"Chinese General Medicine" magazine
2022
"Chinese General Medicine" manuscript processing cycle
From manuscript submission to receipt: 2~3 months
Manuscript received to network priority publication: 3 months
To submit your manuscript, please log on to the official website of the magazine "Chinese General Medicine":
https://www.chinagp.net (full text available for free)
"Chinese General Medicine" review expert recruitment: We are looking forward to you! 👈
"Chinese General Medicine" magazine "Green Channel" 👈
Beware of being fooled! "Chinese General Medicine" magazine solemnly declares 👈
urgent notice: Beware of false invitations and calls for manuscripts! 👈
Contact us
official phone number
010-63052088, 83525550
0310-2067118, 3158007
24-hour hotline: 13103104959
(same number on WeChat)official E-mail
Official website
https://www.chinagp.net
or http ://www.gp519.com
Experts/Young Editorial Committee application email
