The state of primary-care research

D Mant, C Del Mar, P Glasziou, A Knottnerus, P Wallace, C van Weel

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearch

66 Citations (Scopus)
39 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In March, 2003, the editor of The Lancet attended an international conference in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, on primary-care research, subsequently running a rather dyspeptic editorial entitled “Is primary-care research a lost cause?”1 This article highlighted the unacceptable weakness of primary-care research worldwide. A particular concern of the conference was the shortage of primary care research in less economically developed countries to inform the clinical and public health management of malnutrition, malaria, AIDS, water-borne infection, and other illnesses of poverty.2 However, problems exist even in economically developed countries. In Australia, for example, a crude measure of research productivity with practising physicians as the denominator suggests that primary care is only 1% as productive as internal medicine, 0·5% as productive as public health and 1·6% as productive as surgery.3 But for The Lancet to characterise primary-care research as a “lost cause” is unhelpful. This notion implies either that the field is so weak that it cannot be resuscitated or that it is irrelevant anyway. Both are wrong.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1004-1006
Number of pages3
JournalThe Lancet
Volume364
Issue number9438
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Sep 2004

Cite this

Mant, D., Del Mar, C., Glasziou, P., Knottnerus, A., Wallace, P., & van Weel, C. (2004). The state of primary-care research. The Lancet, 364(9438), 1004-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X
Mant, D ; Del Mar, C ; Glasziou, P ; Knottnerus, A ; Wallace, P ; van Weel, C. / The state of primary-care research. In: The Lancet. 2004 ; Vol. 364, No. 9438. pp. 1004-1006.
@article{9654e9852549497387c145063393c41e,
title = "The state of primary-care research",
abstract = "In March, 2003, the editor of The Lancet attended an international conference in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, on primary-care research, subsequently running a rather dyspeptic editorial entitled “Is primary-care research a lost cause?”1 This article highlighted the unacceptable weakness of primary-care research worldwide. A particular concern of the conference was the shortage of primary care research in less economically developed countries to inform the clinical and public health management of malnutrition, malaria, AIDS, water-borne infection, and other illnesses of poverty.2 However, problems exist even in economically developed countries. In Australia, for example, a crude measure of research productivity with practising physicians as the denominator suggests that primary care is only 1{\%} as productive as internal medicine, 0·5{\%} as productive as public health and 1·6{\%} as productive as surgery.3 But for The Lancet to characterise primary-care research as a “lost cause” is unhelpful. This notion implies either that the field is so weak that it cannot be resuscitated or that it is irrelevant anyway. Both are wrong.",
author = "D Mant and {Del Mar}, C and P Glasziou and A Knottnerus and P Wallace and {van Weel}, C",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X",
language = "English",
volume = "364",
pages = "1004--1006",
journal = "Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "9438",

}

Mant, D, Del Mar, C, Glasziou, P, Knottnerus, A, Wallace, P & van Weel, C 2004, 'The state of primary-care research' The Lancet, vol. 364, no. 9438, pp. 1004-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X

The state of primary-care research. / Mant, D; Del Mar, C; Glasziou, P; Knottnerus, A; Wallace, P; van Weel, C.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 364, No. 9438, 11.09.2004, p. 1004-1006.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialResearch

TY - JOUR

T1 - The state of primary-care research

AU - Mant, D

AU - Del Mar, C

AU - Glasziou, P

AU - Knottnerus, A

AU - Wallace, P

AU - van Weel, C

PY - 2004/9/11

Y1 - 2004/9/11

N2 - In March, 2003, the editor of The Lancet attended an international conference in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, on primary-care research, subsequently running a rather dyspeptic editorial entitled “Is primary-care research a lost cause?”1 This article highlighted the unacceptable weakness of primary-care research worldwide. A particular concern of the conference was the shortage of primary care research in less economically developed countries to inform the clinical and public health management of malnutrition, malaria, AIDS, water-borne infection, and other illnesses of poverty.2 However, problems exist even in economically developed countries. In Australia, for example, a crude measure of research productivity with practising physicians as the denominator suggests that primary care is only 1% as productive as internal medicine, 0·5% as productive as public health and 1·6% as productive as surgery.3 But for The Lancet to characterise primary-care research as a “lost cause” is unhelpful. This notion implies either that the field is so weak that it cannot be resuscitated or that it is irrelevant anyway. Both are wrong.

AB - In March, 2003, the editor of The Lancet attended an international conference in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, on primary-care research, subsequently running a rather dyspeptic editorial entitled “Is primary-care research a lost cause?”1 This article highlighted the unacceptable weakness of primary-care research worldwide. A particular concern of the conference was the shortage of primary care research in less economically developed countries to inform the clinical and public health management of malnutrition, malaria, AIDS, water-borne infection, and other illnesses of poverty.2 However, problems exist even in economically developed countries. In Australia, for example, a crude measure of research productivity with practising physicians as the denominator suggests that primary care is only 1% as productive as internal medicine, 0·5% as productive as public health and 1·6% as productive as surgery.3 But for The Lancet to characterise primary-care research as a “lost cause” is unhelpful. This notion implies either that the field is so weak that it cannot be resuscitated or that it is irrelevant anyway. Both are wrong.

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X

M3 - Editorial

VL - 364

SP - 1004

EP - 1006

JO - Lancet

JF - Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9438

ER -

Mant D, Del Mar C, Glasziou P, Knottnerus A, Wallace P, van Weel C. The state of primary-care research. The Lancet. 2004 Sep 11;364(9438):1004-1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X