Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29694439›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study.

Seng Fah Tong, Chirk Jenn Ng, Verna Kar Mun Lee, Ping Yein Lee, Irmi Zarina Ismail, Ee Ming Khoo, Noor Azizah Tahir, Iliza Idris, Mastura Ismail, Adina Abdullah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Seng Fah TongDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-8725-1536
Chirk Jenn NgDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Verna Kar Mun LeeDepartment of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, International Medical University, Seremban, Malaysia.
Ping Yein LeeDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
Irmi Zarina IsmailDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia.
Ee Ming KhooDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Noor Azizah TahirCyberjaya University College of Medical Science, Cyberjaya, Malaysia.
Iliza IdrisKlinik Kesihatan Ampangan, Seremban, Malaysia.
Mastura IsmailKlinik Kesihatan Seremban 2, Seremban, Malaysia.
Adina AbdullahDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, University of Malaya Primary Care Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.

methodsWe used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.

resultsThe GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.

conclusionsThe key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultAgedFocus GroupsGeneral PractitionersGrounded TheoryHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedOrganizational CulturePrimary Health CareSocial Environment

Identifiers

PMID29694439
PMCPMC5919004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.