Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs?

Elizabeth Sturgiss, William R. Phillips, Grant Russell, Tim Olde Hartman, Aaron Orkin, Joanne Reeve, Paul Glasziou, Chris van Weel

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Context: There is increasing interest in increasing the reliability and transparency of published health research.
Despite a plethora of reporting guidelines published in recent years, no specific guidance exists for the reporting
of primary care research. Objective: To assess how often the reporting of primary care research is problematic for
researchers and other end-users. Design: Online survey (Qualtrics), five-point Likert scales (Always – Never),
open questions. Setting: International, interdisciplinary primary care research community in late 2018.
Participants: 286 respondents (113 USA, 47 Australia, 14 UK, 12 the Netherlands). 153 family physicians, 158
with a doctoral degree, 204 researcher/investigators, 20 patients. Findings: 51 found research findings difficult
to implement about half the time due to the reporting. Qualitative studies were most problematic (63 said reports
were insufficient at least half the time). 56 said reports were insufficient for meta-analysis most of the time and
applying research to clinical practice, policy and teaching was also a problem at times. Reports did not always
outline the theory informing the research or patient involvement. Contextual information about patients,
practitioners, and health systems were emphasised as important issues. Implication(s) for practice: These initial
results demonstrate unmet needs that may be met by the development of primary care research reporting
guidelines. Our international group is working to develop Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care.
Original languageEnglish
Article number77
Pages (from-to)xlix
Number of pages1
JournalAustralian Journal of Primary Health
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 5 Jul 2019

Cite this

Sturgiss, E., Phillips, W. R., Russell, G., Hartman, T. O., Orkin, A., Reeve, J., ... van Weel, C. (2019). Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs? Australian Journal of Primary Health, 25(3), xlix. [77]. https://doi.org/10.1071/PYv25n3abs
Sturgiss, Elizabeth ; Phillips, William R. ; Russell, Grant ; Hartman, Tim Olde ; Orkin, Aaron ; Reeve, Joanne ; Glasziou, Paul ; van Weel, Chris. / Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs?. In: Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2019 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. xlix.
@article{8bbdaa6ad33c425482f71c234a249d71,
title = "Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs?",
abstract = "Context: There is increasing interest in increasing the reliability and transparency of published health research.Despite a plethora of reporting guidelines published in recent years, no specific guidance exists for the reportingof primary care research. Objective: To assess how often the reporting of primary care research is problematic forresearchers and other end-users. Design: Online survey (Qualtrics), five-point Likert scales (Always – Never),open questions. Setting: International, interdisciplinary primary care research community in late 2018.Participants: 286 respondents (113 USA, 47 Australia, 14 UK, 12 the Netherlands). 153 family physicians, 158with a doctoral degree, 204 researcher/investigators, 20 patients. Findings: 51 found research findings difficultto implement about half the time due to the reporting. Qualitative studies were most problematic (63 said reportswere insufficient at least half the time). 56 said reports were insufficient for meta-analysis most of the time andapplying research to clinical practice, policy and teaching was also a problem at times. Reports did not alwaysoutline the theory informing the research or patient involvement. Contextual information about patients,practitioners, and health systems were emphasised as important issues. Implication(s) for practice: These initialresults demonstrate unmet needs that may be met by the development of primary care research reportingguidelines. Our international group is working to develop Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care.",
author = "Elizabeth Sturgiss and Phillips, {William R.} and Grant Russell and Hartman, {Tim Olde} and Aaron Orkin and Joanne Reeve and Paul Glasziou and {van Weel}, Chris",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1071/PYv25n3abs",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "xlix",
journal = "Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange",
issn = "1324-2296",
publisher = "CSIRO",
number = "3",

}

Sturgiss, E, Phillips, WR, Russell, G, Hartman, TO, Orkin, A, Reeve, J, Glasziou, P & van Weel, C 2019, 'Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs?' Australian Journal of Primary Health, vol. 25, no. 3, 77, pp. xlix. https://doi.org/10.1071/PYv25n3abs

Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs? / Sturgiss, Elizabeth; Phillips, William R.; Russell, Grant; Hartman, Tim Olde; Orkin, Aaron; Reeve, Joanne; Glasziou, Paul; van Weel, Chris.

In: Australian Journal of Primary Health, Vol. 25, No. 3, 77, 05.07.2019, p. xlix.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs?

AU - Sturgiss, Elizabeth

AU - Phillips, William R.

AU - Russell, Grant

AU - Hartman, Tim Olde

AU - Orkin, Aaron

AU - Reeve, Joanne

AU - Glasziou, Paul

AU - van Weel, Chris

PY - 2019/7/5

Y1 - 2019/7/5

N2 - Context: There is increasing interest in increasing the reliability and transparency of published health research.Despite a plethora of reporting guidelines published in recent years, no specific guidance exists for the reportingof primary care research. Objective: To assess how often the reporting of primary care research is problematic forresearchers and other end-users. Design: Online survey (Qualtrics), five-point Likert scales (Always – Never),open questions. Setting: International, interdisciplinary primary care research community in late 2018.Participants: 286 respondents (113 USA, 47 Australia, 14 UK, 12 the Netherlands). 153 family physicians, 158with a doctoral degree, 204 researcher/investigators, 20 patients. Findings: 51 found research findings difficultto implement about half the time due to the reporting. Qualitative studies were most problematic (63 said reportswere insufficient at least half the time). 56 said reports were insufficient for meta-analysis most of the time andapplying research to clinical practice, policy and teaching was also a problem at times. Reports did not alwaysoutline the theory informing the research or patient involvement. Contextual information about patients,practitioners, and health systems were emphasised as important issues. Implication(s) for practice: These initialresults demonstrate unmet needs that may be met by the development of primary care research reportingguidelines. Our international group is working to develop Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care.

AB - Context: There is increasing interest in increasing the reliability and transparency of published health research.Despite a plethora of reporting guidelines published in recent years, no specific guidance exists for the reportingof primary care research. Objective: To assess how often the reporting of primary care research is problematic forresearchers and other end-users. Design: Online survey (Qualtrics), five-point Likert scales (Always – Never),open questions. Setting: International, interdisciplinary primary care research community in late 2018.Participants: 286 respondents (113 USA, 47 Australia, 14 UK, 12 the Netherlands). 153 family physicians, 158with a doctoral degree, 204 researcher/investigators, 20 patients. Findings: 51 found research findings difficultto implement about half the time due to the reporting. Qualitative studies were most problematic (63 said reportswere insufficient at least half the time). 56 said reports were insufficient for meta-analysis most of the time andapplying research to clinical practice, policy and teaching was also a problem at times. Reports did not alwaysoutline the theory informing the research or patient involvement. Contextual information about patients,practitioners, and health systems were emphasised as important issues. Implication(s) for practice: These initialresults demonstrate unmet needs that may be met by the development of primary care research reportingguidelines. Our international group is working to develop Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care.

U2 - 10.1071/PYv25n3abs

DO - 10.1071/PYv25n3abs

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 25

SP - xlix

JO - Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange

JF - Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange

SN - 1324-2296

IS - 3

M1 - 77

ER -

Sturgiss E, Phillips WR, Russell G, Hartman TO, Orkin A, Reeve J et al. Reporting guidelines for primary care research - what are the needs? Australian Journal of Primary Health. 2019 Jul 5;25(3):xlix. 77. https://doi.org/10.1071/PYv25n3abs