ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Organisational issues in implementing clinical trials in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Difficulties in carrying out public projects of investigation in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify health professionals concerns on the organisational issues of a randomised clinical trial.
designA qualitative cross-sectional, descriptive study.
settingPrimary Care Area 11, Madrid, Spain.
participantsTwenty-four doctors and nurses from 4 primary care teams.
methodThree planning meetings with researchers. Design of an anonymous self-administered questionnaire to collect researchers' perceptions on design, method, and organisation during the implementation of a clinical trial.
resultsThe prestige of being involved in a multi-centre nationwide project, the training sessions offered, a primary care research topic, a working team model of doctor and nurse, and the support provided by team from the 11th Area, were the main organisational incentives. Lack of time, increased clinic workload, and methodological difficulties are discouraging issues. 79.2% (19/24) of the researchers returned the questionnaire. 94.7% (18/19) considered themselves highly motivated. 84.2% (16/19) of researchers, the time required to complete recruitment was reasonable. The 57.9% (13/19) spent 20-25 minutes collecting data at the interview. Cooperation between doctors and nurses had been effective for 68.4% (13/19) of researchers. 89.4% (17/18) considered that support from the Area 11 organisers was useful.
conclusionsOrganisational barriers for implementation are: complexity of data collection at the recruitment interview, design and methodological issues too unrealistic for a primary care setting, and lack of time and extra workload at consultations. The factors that make organisation easier are: having a high level of motivation, sharing workload with other professionals, and support provided by organisers of the trial.
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.