Skip Navigation


Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on April 15, 2008
Family Practice 2008 25(2):105-112; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmn015
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
25/2/105    most recent
cmn015v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hummers-Pradier, E.
Right arrow Articles by Himmel, W.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hummers-Pradier, E.
Right arrow Articles by Himmel, W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research

Eva Hummers-Pradiera, Christa Scheidt-Naveb,c, Heike Martinb, Stephanie Heinemannb, Michael M Kochenb and Wolfgang Himmelb

a Department of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover
b Department of General Practice, University of Göttingen, Göttingen
c Department of Non-communicable Diseases Robert Koch-Institute, Berlin, Germany

Correspondence to Eva Hummers-Pradier, Department of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany; Email: hummers-pradier.eva{at}mh-hannover.de

Received 9 October 2007; Revised 27 February 2008; Accepted 3 March 2008.


  Abstract

Background. Non-participation of general practitioners (GPs) is a serious source of bias for practice-based studies.

Objective. To elucidate doctors' motives for non-participation in, and subjective barriers to, general practice research.

Methods. German GPs that had opted out of a quality assessment project involving electronic patient records (EPRs) were mailed a questionnaire regarding their attitudes towards general practice research and their specific objections to the current project. A sub-sample of doctors was interviewed. Their statements were coded and classified with regard to the reasons given for non-participation and possible motivating factors.

Results. The survey response rate was 37% (96/263); 21 GPs completed an additional qualitative interview. Nearly all respondents (88/96) considered general practice research to be important, but 58% had not previously participated in research projects and 56% would not do so in the future. Nearly half (47/96) were opposed to having data extracted from their EPRs. The qualitative analysis revealed deep concerns related to the collection of EPRs (e.g. potential misuse of data, being subject to control or resulting computer problems). Some GPs expressed concerns about recruiting their own patients for the study. Some doctors complained of not being sufficiently recognized as a partner or not having a voice in the research process.

Conclusion. Doctors' negative attitudes, concerns and ambivalent feelings should be addressed in recruitment strategies, especially when the analysis of EPRs or direct patient contact is required. Some doctors do not participate in research out of principle and will be very difficult to convince.

Keywords. Attitude of health personnel, electronic patient records, general practice, health services research, research design.

Hummers-Pradier E, Scheidt-Nave C, Martin H, Heinemann S, Kochen MM and Himmel W. Simply no time? Barriers to GPs' participation in primary health care research. Family Practice 2008; 25: 105–112.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
J. Graffy
Engaging family practitioners in research: are we getting it right?
Fam. Pract., April 1, 2008; 25(2): 69 - 70.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.