PRP129: Opportunities to improve primary care research reports to meet needs of researchers, clinicians, patients and policymakers
William Phillips, MD, MPH, FAAFP; Elizabeth Sturgiss, MD, PhD, BMed, MPH, FRACGP; Grant Russell, PhD, MBBS, FRACGP MFM; Tim olde Hartman, MD, PhD; Aaron Orkin, MD, MPH, MSc, CCFP(EM) FRCPC; Joanne Reeve, PhD, MBBS, MBChB, MPH; Angela Yang; Liesbeth Hunik, MSc; Paul Glasziou; Chris van Weel, MD, PhD
Context: CRISP - Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) - is an international, multidisciplinary initiative to identify opportunities to improve the reporting of research in primary care (PC). Previous CRISP research documents user difficulty using reports of PC research, particularly in synthesizing findings across studies, applying to policy and transferring to practice. Objective: To identify opportunities to improve the reporting of PC research. Study Design: Two online surveys with targeted, convenience and snowball sampling. Setting: International, multidisciplinary PC research and clinician communities. Population studied: General survey of PC research users: researchers, practitioners, educators, policymakers, patients, and communities. Additional focused survey of clinicians working half-time or more in PC practice. Outcome Measures: Open text comments on reports of PC research regarding special needs in PC, common problems, and potential areas for improvement. Results: Total of 580 respondents across both surveys. General survey of PC research community yielded 286 respondents from 23 nations (USA 40%, Australia 16%, Canada 8%, UK 5%, Netherlands 4%); females 54%; physicians 60% (with 92% being FPs); investigators 26%, clinicians 16% and patients 7%; with full range of research experience. Focused survey of practitioners yielded 294 respondents with a similarly broad distribution, 85% physicians (88% (154) FPs, 9% (15) internal medicine). Free-text answers detailed concerns about special needs and challenges for PC research in categories of planning studies, context of research, research methods, dissemination, implications, implementation, research training, and ethical issues. The greatest needs were for better reporting of the context of clinical care and setting, practical details of interventions, complex nature of relationships (both clinician-patient and teams), transferability, and impact in the great variety of PC practice settings. Conclusions: Opportunities exist to make PC research more valuable for its many users by improving the ways it is reported. CRISP - Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care - is working to develop guidelines to help improve the reporting of PC research.