Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24427184›Full record

ArticleMental health in family medicine2013

Research in general practice: a survey of incentives and disincentives for research participation.

Henry Brodaty, Louisa Hr Gibson, Melissa L Waine, Allan M Shell, Ruth Lilian, Constance Dimity Pond

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in Mental health in family medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06410768 (Evaluating the Feasibility of a Future Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Multistage Shared Decision-making Program for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06410768 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Evaluating the Feasibility of a Future Trial-based Economic Evaluation of a Multistage Shared Decision-making Program for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaastricht University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2025Enrolled40ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Armsmultistage shared decision-making program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. General Practice Statistics in Australia: Pushing a Round Peg into a Square Hole.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Henry BrodatyScientia Professor of Ageing and Mental Health; Director of Dementia, Collaborative Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Louisa Hr GibsonResearch Assistant, Academic Department in Old Age Psychiatry, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Melissa L WaineResearch Assistant, Faculty of Health, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.
Allan M ShellAcademic General Practitioner and Honorary Research Fellow.
Ruth LilianAdministrative Officer Dementia Collaborative Research Centre, School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Constance Dimity PondProfessor of General Practice, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Recruitment rates of general practitioners (GPs) to do research vary widely. This may be related to the ability of a study to incorporate incentives for GPs and minimise barriers to participation. Method A convenience sample of 30 GPs, ten each from the Sydney intervention and control groups Ageing in General Practice 'Detection and Management of Dementia' project (GP project) and 10 GPs who had refused participation, were recruited to determine incentives and barriers to participating in research. GPs completed the 11-item 'Meeting the challenges of research in general practice: general practitioner questionnaire' (GP survey) between months 15 and 24 of the GP project, and received brief qualitative interviews from a research GP to clarify responses where possible. Results The most important incentives the 30 GPs gave for participating in the project were a desire to update knowledge (endorsed by 70%), to help patients (70%), and altruism (60%). Lack of time (43%) was the main barrier. GPs also commented on excessive paperwork and an inadequate explanation of research. Conclusions While a desire to update knowledge and help patients as well as altruism were incentives, time burden was the primary barrier and was likely related to extensive paperwork. Future recruitment may be improved by minimising time burden, making studies simpler with online data entry, offering remuneration and using a GP recruiter.

Indexed as

general practitionerrecruitmentresearch

Identifiers

PMID24427184
PMCPMC3822664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.