ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[Promotion of research in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. 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.
- The profile of general practitioners (GPs) who publish in selected family practice journals.BMC research notes · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify what can be done to promote research and development (R+D) in primary care. To find the main lines of primary care R+D in the Community of Valencia, Spain.
designQualitative research based on consensus group. Concretely, the Phillips technique, modified for the number attending, was employed.
settingPrimary care.
participantsTwenty-four primary care professionals in the Community of Valencia (75% of 32 invited): physicians, pharmacists, teaching or research unit professionals, medical managers, and researcher-doctors leading primary care R+D projects. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Four questions were asked: concerning barriers to research, how to make it easier to take part in competitive R+D contests, how to disseminate results and what topics are of most interest today.
resultsProblems identified were: lack of time, need for technical support, and need for day-schools and prizes to promote investigation. It was suggested that research should be given value in job contests, it should be made a requirement to finish training (MIR), funds for projects in health areas should be created and finance for emerging groups should be provided.
conclusionsIn summary, it was proposed to create research units in every department/area with professionals given time off to lead projects and with administrative support to gain resources. Doctors should be encouraged to take part by the recognition of research for job contests, in their professional careers and in productivity indicators.
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.