Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321430›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Key informants perspectives on creating a high impact research department in family and community medicine: a qualitative project.

Allison Gayapersad, Mary Ann O'Brien, Christopher Meaney, Ishan Aditya, Julia Baxter, Peter Selby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Allison GayapersadINTREPID Lab, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mary Ann O'BrienDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Christopher MeaneyDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ishan AdityaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Julia BaxterINTREPID Lab, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter SelbyINTREPID Lab, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Peter.selby@utoronto.ca.
University of Toronto · CACentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care is integral to the health system and population health. Primary care research is still in development and most academic departments lack effective research investments. High impact primary care research programs are needed to advance the field to ensure a robust primary care system for the future. The project objective was to understand key informants' views of structures, functions, and processes required to create a high impact research program in an academic primary care department.

methodsA descriptive qualitative project with key informants from research programs in primary care. Participants included international research leaders in primary care (n = 10), department of family and community researchers (n = 37) and staff (n = 9) in an academic primary care department, other university leaders (n = 3) and members of the departmental executive leadership team (1 department; 25 members). Semi-structured interviews (n = 27), and focus groups (n = 6) were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. We used a socioecological framework which described micro, meso, macro levels of influence.

resultsAt the micro level despite barriers with respect to funding, protected time and lack of formal mentorship, personal motivation was a key factor. At the meso level, the organizational structure that promoted collaboration and a sense of connection emerged as a key factor. Specifically research leaders identified a research faculty development pipeline based on equity, diversity, inclusion, indigeneity, and accessibility principles with thematic areas of focus as key enablers. Lastly, at the macro level, an overarching culture and policies that promoted funding and primary care research was associated with high impact programs.

conclusionThe alignment/complementarity of micro, meso, and macro level factors influenced the creation of a high impact research department in primary care. High impact research in primary care is facilitated by the development of researchers through formalized and structured mentorship/sponsorship and a department culture that promote primary care research.

Indexed as

Community MedicineFacultyFocus GroupsHumansHigh impact researchPrimary careQualitativeSocioecological framework

Identifiers

PMID38321430
PMCPMC10845512
OpenAlexW4391568002

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.