Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41511392›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2026

Towards best practice recommendations: Perspectives from Australian GPs to inform the use of general practice data for research - A modified Delphi study.

Heidi Green, Justin Beilby, Chris Degeling, Carolyn Adams, Felicity Flack, Lucy Carolan, Belinda Fabrianesi, Anthony Brown, Alberto Nettel Aguirre, Allison Clarke and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Heidi GreenAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Justin BeilbyAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Chris DegelingAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Carolyn AdamsMacquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Felicity FlackPopulation Health Research Network, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia, Australia.
Lucy CarolanAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Belinda FabrianesiAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Anthony BrownAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Alberto Nettel AguirreAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Allison ClarkeAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Data and Analytics Branch, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Christian JungAustralian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, Primary Care Strategy Branch, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Annette Braunack-MayerAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Social Science, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practice medical records offer significant potential for secondary use in research, policy and public health. In Australia, these data remain underused due to concerns around privacy, governance and ethical use. Understanding the perspectives of GPs is essential to developing best practice recommendations for responsible data use.

methodA three-round modified Delphi study was conducted with 22 Australian GPs with experience in research and/or data sharing. Participants rated and commented on 11 recommendations derived from community juries, with consensus defined as ≥75% agreement. Feedback summaries and thematic analysis informed subsequent rounds.

resultsConsensus was reached on 10 of 11 recommendations. The panel supported ethical approval, transparency, protection of the doctor-patient relationship and remuneration for practices contributing data. An opt-out approach to consent was endorsed under strict conditions, with clear distinctions made between vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations. The panel also supported the establishment of a governance body and researcher cybersecurity training. However, no consensus was reached on community involvement in research design, despite its growing recognition as best practice by funding bodies.

conclusionThis study highlights the need for a nationally agreed remuneration model for general practices that contribute data, clearer ethical guidance for engaging vulnerable populations and reform of statutory frameworks to support responsible data use. The lack of consensus on community involvement is concerning, especially as initiatives such as the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and Primary Health Networks (PHN) partnership advance national data standards. Bridging this gap is essential to align professional practice with public expectations and ensure inclusive, ethically robust research.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelAustraliaConfidentialityConsensusDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentMalePhysician-Patient RelationsResearch Designdata sharingDelphigeneral practicegeneral practitionersecondary data use

Identifiers

PMID41511392
PMCPMC12794724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.