PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - William R. Phillips
AU  - Elizabeth Sturgiss
AU  - Liesbeth Hunik
AU  - Paul Glasziou
AU  - Tim olde Hartman
AU  - Aaron Orkin
AU  - Joanne Reeve
AU  - Grant M. Russell
AU  - Chris van Weel
TI  - Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: An International Survey of Researchers
AID  - 10.3122/jabfm.2021.01.200266
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - The Journal of the American Board of Family
                Medicine
PG  - 12--21
VI  - 34
IP  - 1
4099  - http://www.jabfm.org/content/34/1/12.short
4100  - http://www.jabfm.org/content/34/1/12.full
SO  - J Am Board Fam Med2021 Jan 01; 34
AB  - Purpose: To assess opportunities to improve reporting of primary care (PC) research to better meet the needs of its varied users.Methods: International, interprofessional online survey of PC researchers and users, 2018 to 2019. Respondents used Likert scales to rate frequency of difficulties in interpreting, synthesizing, and applying PC research reports. Free-text short answers were categorized by template analysis to record experiences, concerns, and suggestions. Areas of need were checked across existing reporting guidelines.Results: Survey yielded 255 respondents across 24 nations, including 138 women (54.1%), 169 physicians (60%), 32 scientists (11%), 20 educators (7%), and 18 public health professionals (6%). Overall, 37.4% indicated difficulties using PC research reports “50% or more of the time.” The most common problems were synthesizing findings (58%) and assessing generalizability (42%). Difficulty was reported by 49% for qualitative, 46% for mixed methods, and 38% for observational research. Most users wanted richer reporting of theoretical foundation (53.7%); teams, roles, and organization of care (53.4%); and patient involvement in the research process (52.7%). Few reported difficulties with ethics or disclosure of funding or conflicts. Free-text answers described special challenges in reporting PC research: context of clinical care and setting; practical details of interventions; patient-clinician and team relationships; and generalizability, applicability and impact in the great variety of PC settings. Cross-check showed that few current reporting guidelines focus on these needs.Conclusions: Opportunities exist to improve the reporting of PC research to make it more useful for its many users, suggesting a role for a PC research reporting guideline.