Answering the "100 Most Important Family Medicine Research Questions" from the 1985 Hames Consortium.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Christy J W Ledford, Jacqueline B Britz, Melinda L McKew, Mia V von Gal, Neha Balachandran, L A Middleton, Dean A Seehusen
{"title":"Answering the \"100 Most Important Family Medicine Research Questions\" from the 1985 Hames Consortium.","authors":"Christy J W Ledford, Jacqueline B Britz, Melinda L McKew, Mia V von Gal, Neha Balachandran, L A Middleton, Dean A Seehusen","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2024.240130R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The 1985 Hames Consortium convened family medicine researchers to identify outstanding questions in their practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this descriptive review, we collected, codified, and analyzed available literature to describe the availability of evidence to answer these questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 136 total questions, researchers rated 33 questions as not at all answered (24.2%), 49 questions as somewhat answered (36.0%), 37 as mostly answered (27.2%), and 17 as fully answered - will implement in practice (12.5%). Notably, 2 of the categories with the highest number of total questions, community oriented primary care and the value of comprehensive care, had the highest percentage of unanswered questions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The Hames 100 questions and categories themselves demonstrate the values and purpose of family medicine research and can serve as a powerful tool to discuss the future of family medicine research. The varied questions illustrate the broad scope of interest of family physicians in 1985, which remains just as relevant today. Our findings indicate that relatively few questions were fully answered, with even fewer questions answered in family medicine journals.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2024.240130R1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The 1985 Hames Consortium convened family medicine researchers to identify outstanding questions in their practice.

Method: In this descriptive review, we collected, codified, and analyzed available literature to describe the availability of evidence to answer these questions.

Results: Of 136 total questions, researchers rated 33 questions as not at all answered (24.2%), 49 questions as somewhat answered (36.0%), 37 as mostly answered (27.2%), and 17 as fully answered - will implement in practice (12.5%). Notably, 2 of the categories with the highest number of total questions, community oriented primary care and the value of comprehensive care, had the highest percentage of unanswered questions.

Discussion: The Hames 100 questions and categories themselves demonstrate the values and purpose of family medicine research and can serve as a powerful tool to discuss the future of family medicine research. The varied questions illustrate the broad scope of interest of family physicians in 1985, which remains just as relevant today. Our findings indicate that relatively few questions were fully answered, with even fewer questions answered in family medicine journals.

回答 1985 年哈姆斯联合会提出的 "100 个最重要的家庭医学研究问题"。
简介:1985 年,哈姆斯联合会召集了家庭医学研究人员,以确定他们在实践中尚未解决的问题:在这篇描述性综述中,我们收集、整理并分析了现有文献,以描述回答这些问题的证据的可用性:在总共 136 个问题中,研究人员将 33 个问题评为完全没有回答(24.2%),49 个问题评为有一些回答(36.0%),37 个问题评为大部分回答(27.2%),17 个问题评为完全回答--将在实践中实施(12.5%)。值得注意的是,在问题总数最多的两个类别中,以社区为导向的初级保健和综合保健的价值,未回答问题的比例最高:讨论:"哈姆斯 100 "问题和类别本身就表明了家庭医学研究的价值和目的,可作为讨论家庭医学研究未来的有力工具。不同的问题说明了家庭医生在 1985 年的兴趣范围很广,这在今天仍然具有现实意义。我们的研究结果表明,完全回答的问题相对较少,而在家庭医学期刊上回答的问题则更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信