ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2019
Building research culture and capacity in academic family medicine departments: Insights from a simulation workshop.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Financial Incentives and Department Size on Scholarly Activity Output.Annals of family medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding community family medicine preceptors' involvement in educational scholarship: perceptions, influencing factors and promising areas for action.Canadian medical education journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo use data from a workshop in which various representatives from departments of family medicine (DFMs) aimed to identify strategies to increase research activity, particularly among clinical faculty members.
designDescriptive qualitative study using data from a workshop in which participants role-played (ie, as clinician-teachers, department chairs, and mentors) and, while in the role-playing scenario, were asked to imagine strategies that would encourage the clinical faculty members to engage in research.
settingThe 2014 North American Primary Care Research Group Annual Meeting in New York City, NY.
participantsThirty-two workshop participants who belonged to DFMs and other academic primary care organizations: 18 from Canada, 11 from the United States, 2 from Australia, and 1 from the Netherlands.
methodsFacilitators recorded the strategies at the workshop. Strategies were organized into themes and vetted by facilitators to ensure that they adequately represented the data. Finalized themes were compared and integrated across scenarios. MAIN
findingsParticipants enthusiastically and productively engaged in the role-playing scenarios. The themes that emerged from the workshop discussions indicated that in order to increase clinician-teacher engagement in research, the following factors needed to be attended to: gaining confidence in conducting research; finding research topics that have personal relevance; presenting clarity of expectations; fostering collaborative relationships; using a tailored approach; providing resources, structures, and processes; and having leadership and vision. Finally, it was important to recognize these efforts in the context of the existing research environment of the DFM and the various responsibilities of clinician-teachers.
conclusionThe analysis of data arising from this simulation workshop elucidated practical strategies for building and sustaining research in DFMs. There is a clear indication that one size does not fit all with respect to strategies for building a research culture in a DFM; the authors' recommendations guide departments to tailor strategies to their unique context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30674527PMC6347319What 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.