How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks? A cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two new south wales networks

Parker J. Magin, Melanie J. Marshall, Susan M. Goode, Georgina L. Cotter, C. Dimity Pond, Nicholas A. Zwar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the demographics of general practitioners in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and to explore the generalisability of research findings from these PBRNs. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of two geographically-based PBRNs - Hunter New England Central Coast Network of Research General Practices (NRGP) and Primary Healthcare Research Network-General Practice (PHReNet-GP) - during August-September 2010. All 183 GP members of both PBRNs were invited to participate; of these, 140 (77%) participated. Main outcome measures: GPs' demographics, use of languages other than English in consultations, and previous participation in research. Practices' use of practice nurses. Socioeconomic status and rurality or urbanicity of practice location. Results: Compared with PHReNet-GP GPs, NRGP GPs were more likely to work in a practice employing a practice nurse (100% v 53.8%; 95% CI for difference, 30.5%-61.8%; P < 0.001), worked in larger practices (2.9 more full-time-equivalent GPs per practice; 95% CI, 2.1-3.6; P< 0.001), and were less likely to work in a major city (33.7% v 89.7%; 95% CI for difference, 42.8%-69.3%; P< 0.001). NRGP GPs also worked in practices with a different spectrum of socioeconomic disadvantage, and were less likely to have been involved in research as a researcher (35.4% v 76.9%; 95% CI for difference, 25.3%-57.8%; P< 0.001). Fewer NRGP GPs consulted in languages other than English (8.9% v 64.1%; 95% CI for difference, 39.1%-71.2%; P< 0.001). There were also differences between these and national general practice statistics. Conclusions: These results suggest possible lack of generalisability of findings from some types of studies conducted in single PBRNs. In such circumstances, collaboration of PBRNs may produce more generalisable results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)210-213
Number of pages4
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume195
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 15 Aug 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

New South Wales
General Practitioners
Cross-Sectional Studies
Demography
General Practice
Research
Health Services Research
Primary Health Care
Language
Nurses
New England
Social Class
Referral and Consultation

Cite this

@article{8f39df7b7f8d499c9de49139b3408b98,
title = "How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks? A cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two new south wales networks",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the demographics of general practitioners in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and to explore the generalisability of research findings from these PBRNs. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of two geographically-based PBRNs - Hunter New England Central Coast Network of Research General Practices (NRGP) and Primary Healthcare Research Network-General Practice (PHReNet-GP) - during August-September 2010. All 183 GP members of both PBRNs were invited to participate; of these, 140 (77{\%}) participated. Main outcome measures: GPs' demographics, use of languages other than English in consultations, and previous participation in research. Practices' use of practice nurses. Socioeconomic status and rurality or urbanicity of practice location. Results: Compared with PHReNet-GP GPs, NRGP GPs were more likely to work in a practice employing a practice nurse (100{\%} v 53.8{\%}; 95{\%} CI for difference, 30.5{\%}-61.8{\%}; P < 0.001), worked in larger practices (2.9 more full-time-equivalent GPs per practice; 95{\%} CI, 2.1-3.6; P< 0.001), and were less likely to work in a major city (33.7{\%} v 89.7{\%}; 95{\%} CI for difference, 42.8{\%}-69.3{\%}; P< 0.001). NRGP GPs also worked in practices with a different spectrum of socioeconomic disadvantage, and were less likely to have been involved in research as a researcher (35.4{\%} v 76.9{\%}; 95{\%} CI for difference, 25.3{\%}-57.8{\%}; P< 0.001). Fewer NRGP GPs consulted in languages other than English (8.9{\%} v 64.1{\%}; 95{\%} CI for difference, 39.1{\%}-71.2{\%}; P< 0.001). There were also differences between these and national general practice statistics. Conclusions: These results suggest possible lack of generalisability of findings from some types of studies conducted in single PBRNs. In such circumstances, collaboration of PBRNs may produce more generalisable results.",
author = "Magin, {Parker J.} and Marshall, {Melanie J.} and Goode, {Susan M.} and Cotter, {Georgina L.} and Pond, {C. Dimity} and Zwar, {Nicholas A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
day = "15",
language = "English",
volume = "195",
pages = "210--213",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "0025-729X",
publisher = "AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD",
number = "4",

}

How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks? A cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two new south wales networks. / Magin, Parker J.; Marshall, Melanie J.; Goode, Susan M.; Cotter, Georgina L.; Pond, C. Dimity; Zwar, Nicholas A.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 195, No. 4, 15.08.2011, p. 210-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks? A cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two new south wales networks

AU - Magin, Parker J.

AU - Marshall, Melanie J.

AU - Goode, Susan M.

AU - Cotter, Georgina L.

AU - Pond, C. Dimity

AU - Zwar, Nicholas A.

PY - 2011/8/15

Y1 - 2011/8/15

N2 - Objective: To compare the demographics of general practitioners in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and to explore the generalisability of research findings from these PBRNs. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of two geographically-based PBRNs - Hunter New England Central Coast Network of Research General Practices (NRGP) and Primary Healthcare Research Network-General Practice (PHReNet-GP) - during August-September 2010. All 183 GP members of both PBRNs were invited to participate; of these, 140 (77%) participated. Main outcome measures: GPs' demographics, use of languages other than English in consultations, and previous participation in research. Practices' use of practice nurses. Socioeconomic status and rurality or urbanicity of practice location. Results: Compared with PHReNet-GP GPs, NRGP GPs were more likely to work in a practice employing a practice nurse (100% v 53.8%; 95% CI for difference, 30.5%-61.8%; P < 0.001), worked in larger practices (2.9 more full-time-equivalent GPs per practice; 95% CI, 2.1-3.6; P< 0.001), and were less likely to work in a major city (33.7% v 89.7%; 95% CI for difference, 42.8%-69.3%; P< 0.001). NRGP GPs also worked in practices with a different spectrum of socioeconomic disadvantage, and were less likely to have been involved in research as a researcher (35.4% v 76.9%; 95% CI for difference, 25.3%-57.8%; P< 0.001). Fewer NRGP GPs consulted in languages other than English (8.9% v 64.1%; 95% CI for difference, 39.1%-71.2%; P< 0.001). There were also differences between these and national general practice statistics. Conclusions: These results suggest possible lack of generalisability of findings from some types of studies conducted in single PBRNs. In such circumstances, collaboration of PBRNs may produce more generalisable results.

AB - Objective: To compare the demographics of general practitioners in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and to explore the generalisability of research findings from these PBRNs. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of two geographically-based PBRNs - Hunter New England Central Coast Network of Research General Practices (NRGP) and Primary Healthcare Research Network-General Practice (PHReNet-GP) - during August-September 2010. All 183 GP members of both PBRNs were invited to participate; of these, 140 (77%) participated. Main outcome measures: GPs' demographics, use of languages other than English in consultations, and previous participation in research. Practices' use of practice nurses. Socioeconomic status and rurality or urbanicity of practice location. Results: Compared with PHReNet-GP GPs, NRGP GPs were more likely to work in a practice employing a practice nurse (100% v 53.8%; 95% CI for difference, 30.5%-61.8%; P < 0.001), worked in larger practices (2.9 more full-time-equivalent GPs per practice; 95% CI, 2.1-3.6; P< 0.001), and were less likely to work in a major city (33.7% v 89.7%; 95% CI for difference, 42.8%-69.3%; P< 0.001). NRGP GPs also worked in practices with a different spectrum of socioeconomic disadvantage, and were less likely to have been involved in research as a researcher (35.4% v 76.9%; 95% CI for difference, 25.3%-57.8%; P< 0.001). Fewer NRGP GPs consulted in languages other than English (8.9% v 64.1%; 95% CI for difference, 39.1%-71.2%; P< 0.001). There were also differences between these and national general practice statistics. Conclusions: These results suggest possible lack of generalisability of findings from some types of studies conducted in single PBRNs. In such circumstances, collaboration of PBRNs may produce more generalisable results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051777463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 195

SP - 210

EP - 213

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 0025-729X

IS - 4

ER -