A new project for the European General Practice Research Network in 2012 was a reflective process on the future of the network and general practice research in Europe. The Executive Board and Secretary expanded the annual National Representative reports into a broad process of soul-searching. After the completion of this work to define a European Research Agenda for general practice, the question is ‘where are we now going’? Quo Vadis, EGPRN?
The discussion started amongst Executive Board members with a focus on a vision for the future EGPRN, its membership and a sustainable approach in the current difficult financial climate. Specific issues, which had been raised in discussions with individual members, included the optimal number of meetings per year, the support needs of individual researchers as against those of research institutes, and the best relationships with National Representatives, National Colleges and Wonca. The process was intended to allow EGPRN to better fulfil its goals: to provide a suitable setting in which to discuss and develop research in primary care and family medicine, to foster and coordinate multi-national studies, to allow exchange of experiences and to develop a validated scientific basis for family medicine, and to continue to offer family doctors the opportunity to meet European colleagues and prompt local and international research collaboration. However, the specific aim was to prioritise, which approach is most important in achieving these goals. The core role of EGPRN was historically its themed research meetings and workshops, with lots of detailed feedback on research presentations in a safe environment, and its basic/intermediate research courses. A recent development of this role was the organization of research conferences, with (external) keynote lecturers to introduce the theme of EGPRN meetings, networking with other research organizations and family doctor groups, and promoting collaborative research projects. A new, extended role was proposed by some members, involving strengthening the network's external collaboration with institutes and other networks to develop and support collaborative research, possibly involving increased representation of institutes, and a refocusing of resources, which may impact EGPRN's traditional core roles.
The discussions in the Executive needed to be broadened to the general Council of National Representatives, and the general EGPRN membership. This was implemented by a questionnaire with open and closed questions sent by the Secretary to the National Representatives and Institutional Members. The questionnaire explored opinions on:
What has EGPRN done well in the past?
What are the network's strong and weak points, presently?
How can EGPRN do more and better in the future?
Eighteen replies were received from 15 countries: Slovakia, Germany, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Malta, Italy, Latvia, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Belgium, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Croatia.
EGPRN was considered to be doing well in providing a safe and friendly atmosphere for presenting research work, good quality of research presentations as compared to other conferences, good personal contacts with other family doctor researchers, strong collaboration and networking, strong research presented around good themes, with quality people attending allowing good discussions at the meeting.
Perceived barriers to EGPRN membership included the costs of attending meetings, the weak position of family medicine research in many countries, English being the language of the meeting, competition with other network meetings, and a lower value for researchers coming from environments where family medicine research is already well developed, in that order. It was suggested that EGPRN could improve the costs of attending meetings, and one response suggested that some presentations lacked scientific rigor.
Specific proposals for improvement included starting or getting involved in more international collaborative projects, having only one meeting a year, implementing measures to strengthen discussions at meetings, balancing a careful mixture of past and present roles, and trying to get more work done between meetings, possibly with a more professional core Executive Board.
In a quantitative survey, the core and network roles of EGPRN were given more priority by respondents than a new, extended network role, and there was a lower priority given to a major change rather than a strengthening of current roles.
In conclusion, the open review of National Representative and Institutional members of EGPRN proposes that the network is doing very well in its core role of providing a safe atmosphere for developing research in family medicine, with rich discussions involving senior researchers to develop research capacity. Respondents felt a need for strengthening collaboration and involvement in international research projects. Respondents did not feel a need for major change in our orientation, but rather felt a need to protect what we have and to build on our strengths, finding a careful balance between past and present roles.
These themes were discussed at length during focus groups of the participants at the recent EGPRN Council meeting in Ljubljana in May 2012. The outcome of this exercise shall be extensively reported to the Council in Antwerp in October 2012 for decisions on the future of the network.
A bright future beckons EGPRN!