Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: The views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of key barriers to research.

Low research capacity [29]

Lack of time [15] Lack of connection to skilled research [15]. Lack of research expertise or access to means to improve it [15,29]

Strong publication as the main outcome [16]

Lack of networking opportunities for mentoring and career development [9]

GPs do not have the time or patience for process (e.g. ethics application); their success depends on meeting patients’ needs [16,29]

Collaborative priority settings between researchers, and end users of research is more time-consuming than traditional approaches to project development [8]

Table 2. Summary of key facilitators for research.

Fair relationships between academic and practice partners are important [20]

Financial support for practicing clinicians to conduct research [30]

Access to senior researchers [16]

Timeliness of the research itself [16]

Personal contact among major stakeholders [16]

‘Knowledge brokers’ might be required to translate the research into actionable, policy relevant messages [23]

The quality of the research undertaken [16,19]

Research that supports existing policy directions [5,16]

Peer support and a formal academic posting for clinicians engaged in research [16]

‘Simplicity over complexity’ (for the focus of research) [16]

Practice relevant activities that promote research education, dissemination and collaboration partnership opportunities [17]

Appropriate infrastructure, national research institutes and university departments of family medicine [5,17]

Leadership [17]

Mechanisms for sustainability ‘within healthcare organization’ [17], research practice based networks [30]

The use of pre-existing historical partnerships with ongoing dialogue [8]

Length of the programme providing stability and long-term relationships [8]

Peer-reviewed journal(s) [29]

Table 3. Identified barriers, suggested solutions and their outcomes.

Identified barriers	Suggested solutions	Outcomes
Individual
Lack of human resources	Availability of mentors	Mentorships
No individual research posts	Peer-learning	National and international masterclasses
No mentorship	Improve soft skills
No leadership	Research competences, and specific knowledge on general practice research	Grants for visits and protected time
Brain drain
		Process learning courses (face-to-face, e-learning, etc.)
Low access to literature, courses, conferences, etc.
Few research contacts	Participation in international projects	Peer-learning
Financial difficulties
		Database
		Collaborative projects
Organizational
Low knowledge translation	Improve mentorship	Train the trainers
Lack of certification	Rewarded mentorship	Visits from high performing countries
No clinical networks	Increase environmental face	Overheads for receiving institution
Low involvement/influx with own organization
		Accreditation
		Database
		Access to literature
		Process learning
Environmental
Low cooperation stakeholders	Improve mentorship and leadership	Courses (face-to-face, e-learning, etc.)
No appropriate leadership	Improve knowledge translation
Low collaboration with high performing countries	Improve external contacts/environmental face	Peer-learning
		Database
Low visibility	Increase visibility in national and European context	Collaborative projects
		Environmental face advances
		Process learning
		Application to EU funding

Mash R, Essuman A, Ratansi R, et al. African primary care research: current situation, priorities and capacity building. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2014;6:E1–E6.

 Google Scholar

Barnett L, Holden L, Donoghue D, et al. What is needed to increase research capacity in rural primary health care? Aust J Prim Health. 2005;11:45–53.

 Google Scholar

Birden HH. The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research? Rural Remote Health. 2007;7:776.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Vogel I. Research capacity strengthening: learning from experience. London: UKCDS; 2012. [Online] Available at: http://www.ukcds.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/resources/UKCDS_Capacity_Building_Report_July_2012.pdf. [Accessed 11/06/2018]

 Google Scholar

Cooke J, Ariss S, Smith C, Read J. On-going collaborative priority-setting for research activity: a method of capacity building to reduce the research-practice translational gap. Health Res Policy Syst 2015;13:25.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kalucy EC, Pearce CM, Beacham B, et al. What supports effective research links between divisions of general practice and universities? Med J Aust 2006;185:114–116.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van der Zee J, Kroneman M, Bolíbar B. Conditions for research in general practice. Can the Dutch and British experiences be applied to other countries, for example Spain? Eur J Gen Pract. 2003;9:41–47.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Pirkis JE, Blashki GA, Murphy AW, et al. The contribution of general practice based research to the development of national policy: case studies from Ireland and Australia. Aust N Z Health Policy. 2006;3:4 [8462-3-4].

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Stewart M, Wuite S, Ramsden V, et al. Transdisciplinary understandings and training on research: successfully building research capacity in primary health care. Can Fam Phys. 2014;60:581–582.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Weel C, Rosser WW. Improving health care globally: a critical review of the necessity of family medicine research and recommendations to build research capacity. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2:S5–S16.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Miller J, Bryant Maclean L, Coward P, et al. Developing strategies to enhance health services research capacity in a predominantly rural Canadian health authority. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9:1266.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar