Research in general practice: a survey of incentives and disincentives for research participation.

Mental health in family medicine Pub Date : 2013-09-01
Henry Brodaty, Louisa Hr Gibson, Melissa L Waine, Allan M Shell, Ruth Lilian, Constance Dimity Pond
{"title":"Research in general practice: a survey of incentives and disincentives for research participation.","authors":"Henry Brodaty,&nbsp;Louisa Hr Gibson,&nbsp;Melissa L Waine,&nbsp;Allan M Shell,&nbsp;Ruth Lilian,&nbsp;Constance Dimity Pond","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Recruitment rates of general practitioners (GPs) to do research vary widely. This may be related to the ability of a study to incorporate incentives for GPs and minimise barriers to participation. Method A convenience sample of 30 GPs, ten each from the Sydney intervention and control groups Ageing in General Practice 'Detection and Management of Dementia' project (GP project) and 10 GPs who had refused participation, were recruited to determine incentives and barriers to participating in research. GPs completed the 11-item 'Meeting the challenges of research in general practice: general practitioner questionnaire' (GP survey) between months 15 and 24 of the GP project, and received brief qualitative interviews from a research GP to clarify responses where possible. Results The most important incentives the 30 GPs gave for participating in the project were a desire to update knowledge (endorsed by 70%), to help patients (70%), and altruism (60%). Lack of time (43%) was the main barrier. GPs also commented on excessive paperwork and an inadequate explanation of research. Conclusions While a desire to update knowledge and help patients as well as altruism were incentives, time burden was the primary barrier and was likely related to extensive paperwork. Future recruitment may be improved by minimising time burden, making studies simpler with online data entry, offering remuneration and using a GP recruiter. </p>","PeriodicalId":89603,"journal":{"name":"Mental health in family medicine","volume":"10 3","pages":"163-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3822664/pdf/MHFM-10-163.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mental health in family medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Recruitment rates of general practitioners (GPs) to do research vary widely. This may be related to the ability of a study to incorporate incentives for GPs and minimise barriers to participation. Method A convenience sample of 30 GPs, ten each from the Sydney intervention and control groups Ageing in General Practice 'Detection and Management of Dementia' project (GP project) and 10 GPs who had refused participation, were recruited to determine incentives and barriers to participating in research. GPs completed the 11-item 'Meeting the challenges of research in general practice: general practitioner questionnaire' (GP survey) between months 15 and 24 of the GP project, and received brief qualitative interviews from a research GP to clarify responses where possible. Results The most important incentives the 30 GPs gave for participating in the project were a desire to update knowledge (endorsed by 70%), to help patients (70%), and altruism (60%). Lack of time (43%) was the main barrier. GPs also commented on excessive paperwork and an inadequate explanation of research. Conclusions While a desire to update knowledge and help patients as well as altruism were incentives, time burden was the primary barrier and was likely related to extensive paperwork. Future recruitment may be improved by minimising time burden, making studies simpler with online data entry, offering remuneration and using a GP recruiter.

一般实践中的研究:参与研究的激励和抑制因素的调查。
背景:全科医生(gp)从事研究的招聘率差异很大。这可能与一项研究的能力有关,该研究包括对全科医生的激励,并尽量减少参与的障碍。方法选取30名全科医生作为方便样本,分别来自悉尼干预组和对照组(GP项目)和10名拒绝参与的全科医生,以确定参与研究的激励和障碍。全科医生在全科医生项目的第15至24个月之间完成了11项“应对全科医生研究的挑战:全科医生问卷”(全科医生调查),并接受了一名研究全科医生的简短定性访谈,以尽可能澄清回答。结果30名全科医生参与该项目的最重要动机是希望更新知识(70%),帮助患者(70%)和利他主义(60%)。缺乏时间(43%)是主要障碍。全科医生还评论了过多的文书工作和对研究的不充分解释。虽然更新知识和帮助患者的愿望以及利他主义是激励因素,但时间负担是主要障碍,可能与大量的文书工作有关。未来的招聘可能会通过减少时间负担、通过在线数据输入简化研究、提供薪酬和使用全科医生招聘人员来改善。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书