PRP102: Identifying Primary Care Research Priorities in China: a modified Delphi study
Yang Wang, MD, PhD; Tingting Li, MPH; Xiaolong Zhang; Xiaohuan Gao, MPH; Yanli Xu, MD, PhD; Hui Yang, MD, PhD, FCSMEA-CGP; Jianjun Han, MPH, MBA, FCSMEA-CGP
Abstract
Context:
Identifying research priorities of primary care is an effective approach to improve practice-based research for responding needs of best practice. China is on way of conducting an ambitious primary care development plan. Filling the knowledge gaps in this field could be one of key facilitators of developing primary care in China.
Objective:
Identifying the highest priority primary care research areas which needs to be addressed in the next 5 to 10 years, and the degree of difficulties to conduct them.
Study Design:
A modified Delphi Method was applied that include a three-round expert panel consultations of primary care researchers (both Chinese and international researchers with adequate knowledge and experience). A bank of areas for primary care research was generalized in Round 1. A ranking based on importance of each nominated area was found in Round 2 by 5-point Likert scale. A short list of top prioritised research areas and the difficulty to conduct them were then drawn in Round 3.
Setting:
This study was conducted by the primary care researcher network of Chinese General Practice Press.
Results：
Twenty-four Chinese primary care researchers and six international researchers participated the study and 183 primary care research questions were identified in the initial round. Five prioritised research areas were identified after the 3rd round: how to systematically motivate the development of primary care discipline in China based on local contexts (basic), what are the core competencies of GPs in different regions/institutions and what proportion of GPs are competent in their present position (clinical), can current payment system keep Chinese primary care practitioners motivated and how to improve it (health system), how to define the core competencies and the scope of service of GP teams, and how to assess the quality of their service (health service), and to what extent are certified (5+3) GP residency graduates practicing the scope of medicine that they learned during residency training (educational).
Conclusion：
This study identified the prioritized list of Chinese primary care research questions and estimated the difficulty to study them from the perspective of primary care researchers and practitioners. It created an initial guidance which helps primary care researchers to clarify research directions, apply funding and seek support. It also has the potential to motivate the development of international collaborative studies.
Identifying research priorities of primary care is an effective approach to improve practice-based research for responding needs of best practice. China is on way of conducting an ambitious primary care development plan. Filling the knowledge gaps in this field could be one of key facilitators of developing primary care in China.
Objective:
Identifying the highest priority primary care research areas which needs to be addressed in the next 5 to 10 years, and the degree of difficulties to conduct them.
Study Design:
A modified Delphi Method was applied that include a three-round expert panel consultations of primary care researchers (both Chinese and international researchers with adequate knowledge and experience). A bank of areas for primary care research was generalized in Round 1. A ranking based on importance of each nominated area was found in Round 2 by 5-point Likert scale. A short list of top prioritised research areas and the difficulty to conduct them were then drawn in Round 3.
Setting:
This study was conducted by the primary care researcher network of Chinese General Practice Press.
Results：
Twenty-four Chinese primary care researchers and six international researchers participated the study and 183 primary care research questions were identified in the initial round. Five prioritised research areas were identified after the 3rd round: how to systematically motivate the development of primary care discipline in China based on local contexts (basic), what are the core competencies of GPs in different regions/institutions and what proportion of GPs are competent in their present position (clinical), can current payment system keep Chinese primary care practitioners motivated and how to improve it (health system), how to define the core competencies and the scope of service of GP teams, and how to assess the quality of their service (health service), and to what extent are certified (5+3) GP residency graduates practicing the scope of medicine that they learned during residency training (educational).
Conclusion：
This study identified the prioritized list of Chinese primary care research questions and estimated the difficulty to study them from the perspective of primary care researchers and practitioners. It created an initial guidance which helps primary care researchers to clarify research directions, apply funding and seek support. It also has the potential to motivate the development of international collaborative studies.