ArticlePloS one2018
Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recruiting general practitioners and patients with dementia into a cluster randomised controlled trial: strategies, barriers and facilitators.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Trial
- Sustainable implementation of practice-based research networks in primary care: a qualitative process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Barriers and Associated Factors to Writing Case Reports Among Japanese General Medicine Physicians: A Cross-Sectional Study of the Japan Primary Care Association Members.Journal of general and family medicine · 2026Article
- What are the primary care physicians and cardiologists talking about? a cross-sectional analysis of two telemedicine services in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Two sides of the same coin: recruitment performance and perceived workload in primary care trials-insights from the AgeWell.de study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Exploring participants' characteristics and self-assessed readiness to conduct clinical trials in general practice - baseline analysis of the RaPHaeL practice-based research network.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2025Article
- Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Article
- Experiences with Innovation Fund healthcare models in primary care: a qualitative study amongst German general practitioners.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Article
- Clinical trial recruitment in primary care: exploratory factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure barriers and facilitators to primary care providers' involvement.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Antecedents and Consequences of Online Healthcare Community Usage: A Grounded Theory Approach.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- [The German Innovation Fund and primary care-What expectations and experiences do general practitioners have with regard to participating in innovative care models?]Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- Article
- Recruitment and participation of a survey in a public-private primary care setting: experience from the QUALICOPC Malaysia.Primary health care research & development · 2020Article
- General practitioners' willingness to participate in research: A survey in central Switzerland.PloS one · 2019Article
- Rural Family Medicine Clinicians' Motivations to Participate in a Pragmatic Obesity Trial.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.