ArticleBMC primary care2025
Competing epistemologies: a reflexive thematic analysis of research in general practice.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough most UK National Health Service (NHS) consultations take place in primary care, healthcare research is dominated by secondary care and higher education institutions. The Royal College of General Practitioners has called for increased academic activity by developing research capability in General Practice. However, little is known about the challenges for GPs involved in research. We aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs) experiences of using a screening tool embedded in a research study.
methodWe recruited GPs from three practises participating in the study. An independent researcher interviewed GPs virtually. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, checked against recordings, and de-identified. We used Reflexive Thematic Analysis to develop essential themes.
resultsWe developed four themes giving insight into barriers to research activity: (1) it's rare that things are black or white, (2) it's a clinical tool, not a clinician, (3) it's about balancing valuable time, (4) we don't see every patient face-to-face anymore.
conclusionQuantitative research design, underpinned by positivist epistemology does not always align with primary care practice. Our findings highlight competing epistemologies that can make it challenging for GPs to complete standardised measures in a primary care setting. General practice involves a complex reasoning process grounded on interpretive knowledge. Closed questioning does not always comfortably align with a primary care setting where "a simple answer" is rare. Compatibility with primary care should be considered in all research design.
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.