ArticleBMC family practice2009
Research activity and capacity in primary healthcare: the REACH study: a survey.
Article in BMC family practice, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to primary care staff conducting research - a qualitative systematic review.The European journal of general practice · 2025Pooled it
- What works to recruit general practices to trials? A rapid review.HRB open research · 2023Pooled it
- Turning problems into progress for primary care research trainees: a mixed-methods analysis of an online cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Key informants perspectives on creating a high impact research department in family and community medicine: a qualitative project.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of an Academic-Practice Team Approach on Research Capacity Building of Nurses and Public Health Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Research orientation among general practitioners compared to other specialties.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2021Article
- Acceptability and feasibility of conducting a pilot trial in Irish primary care: lessons from the IDEAs study.HRB open research · 2021Article
- A Feasibility Study Of Administering The Electronic Research And Development Culture Index To The Multidisciplinary Workforce In A UK Teaching Hospital.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2019Article
- Physiotherapy managers' views of musculoskeletal physiotherapy service provision in Ireland: a qualitative study.Primary health care research & development · 2018Article
- Cancer health professionals need funding, time, research knowledge and skills to be involved in health services research.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2014Article
- Research in general practice: a survey of incentives and disincentives for research participation.Mental health in family medicine · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite increased investment in primary care research and development (R&D), the level of engagement of primary healthcare professionals with research remains poor. The aim of this study is to assess the level of research activity and capacity for research among primary healthcare professionals in a health authority of over one million people in a mixed urban/rural setting in the West of Ireland.
methodsA questionnaire, incorporating the R+D Culture Index, was sent to primary healthcare professionals in the HSE Western Region. Baseline characteristics were analysed with the use of one-way ANOVA and Chi-square test and the dependence of R&D Culture Index score on all sixteen available covariates was examined using multiple regression and regression tree modelling.
resultsThere was a 54% response rate to the questionnaire. Primary healthcare professionals appeared to have an interest in and awareness of the importance of research in primary care but just 15% were found to be research active in this study. A more positive attitude towards an R&D culture was associated with having had previous research training, being currently involved in research and with not being a general practitioner (GP) (p < 0.001), but much variability in the R&D culture index score remained unexplained.
conclusionDespite awareness of the importance of R&D in primary care and investment therein, primary healthcare professionals remain largely unengaged with the R&D process. This study highlights the issues that need to be addressed in order to encourage a shift towards a culture of R&D in primary care: lack of research training particularly in basic research skills and increased opportunities for research involvement. The use of the R&D Culture Index may enable groups to be identified that may be more research interested and can therefore be targeted in any future R&D strategy.
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.