ArticleAtencion primaria2004
[Primary Care research: attitudes and hindrances perceived by our doctors].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing clinical research in the Spanish primary care service: Challenges, opportunities, and lessons from other European models.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- [Research within the reach of Osakidetza professionals: Primary Health Care Research Program].Atencion primaria · 2014Article
- [Promotion of research in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
- [Factors that affect recruitment for a clinical trial in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2006Article
- [Profile of family doctors who do research: extrapolation from public sector job offers in Galicia].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Primary care research: are we doing what we should?].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Primary care research: excuses, clichés or realities?].Atencion primaria · 2005Article
- [Suspecting COVID-19 from Primary Care].Atencion primariaArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo discover how much research doctors in our area do; to describe their attitudes to research; and to evaluate the hindrances to developing research that they found.
designCross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingArea 7 of Primary Care, Madrid.
participantsArea 7 doctors. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was designed in order to gather the following information: age, gender, professional details, training in research methodology, research activity, questions from a previously validated questionnaire for finding attitudes towards research (scores from 0 to 80), and a question for assigning a value to 6 hindrances to research.
results174 were returned (49.4% response). 65.9% of the doctors were women, with an average age of 43.23+/-7.33 years; and 55.5% were specialists in Family and Community Medicine. Over the last 5 years, 49.4% had published a scientific paper and 38% had given reports at congresses. The mean score on attitudes to research was 53.49+/-10.59. Hindrances to research were given in the following order, from greatest to least: case-load, lack of time, structural deficiencies, absence of multi-centred research lines, lack of incentives, lack of training, no motivation.
conclusionsThe research activity of our doctors is similar to that found in other studies. Attitude to research is no better than "acceptable." The main hindrances stated were: case-load and lack of time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.