Editorial |
Review articles on research methods for family practice researchers
Email: martin.dawes{at}mcgill.ca
For several years now Family Practice has been publishing intermittent review articles on methodological issues, the most recent examines research in primary care databases.1 These have been solicited by Professor Lorne Becker. We are pleased to say that Lorne has been elected co-chair of the Cochrane Collaboration, but sad that this means he will no longer have time to be an associate editor for Family Practice. Prof. Martin Dawes has agreed to take this task on with his role as web-editor, and we are going to take the opportunity to publish more of these articles, bringing them together as a resource for researchers.
The people we look after in family practice are different from populations seen in other health care settings. Their presentation, prevalence, incidence, prognosis and response to treatment are all different from those seen in secondary care.2 For these reasons it is essential that research is undertaken in primary care.3,4 To enable that we need a larger research community and this means giving more doctors the tools to undertake effective research. It is always sad to see an article submitted to this journal that addresses an important topic and has taken a lot of hard work, but because of methodological flaws has lost a lot of its potential validity and applicability.
While undertaking a master's in general practice or epidemiology is undoubtedly one of the best ways to learn research methods a lot of enthusiastic doctors interested in research just do not have the time or the money to do this. Their research training usually comes from colleagues, textbooks and journals. These sources and a lot of methodological articles in journals rarely speak from the perspective of the family practitioner. As novice researchers we wanted to see articles that gave examples of projects in general practice that were relevant to our research ideas, written in as plain English as possible, and accompanied by a few appropriate references. Similar needs exist for non-clinical researchers moving to the applied area of family practice.
Family Practice, with your help, wants to provide exactly that sort of help to primary care researchers around the world. We would like to produce a series of articles on how to be a researcher in our unique practice environment. To that end we are looking for volunteers to write these articles. They can vary from the nuts and bolts of performing trials in practice to the methodological issues of trial design. They should be based as much as possible on your own experience as researchers but also give links to further material. They will not be a replacement for a master's but rather a smorgasbord of instruction based on real experience of researchers in general practice. Our hope is that these articles will not only provide instruction but also will stimulate others to undertake similar research. To be considered as an author please send Martin outlines of such articles that you may wish to write with the title and very brief description. We will then invite you formally via Manuscript Central if your proposal is accepted.
Notes
Dawes M and Delaney B. Review articles on research methods for family practice researchers. Family Practice 2006; 23: 489.
REFERENCES
1 Smeeth L, Donnan PT, Cook DG. (2006) The use of primary care databases: case-control and case-only designs. Fam Pract 23:597–604.
2 Mickan S and Askew D. (2006) What sort of evidence do we need in primary care? BMJ 332:619–620.
3 Mant D, Del Mar C, Glasziou P, Knottnerus A, Wallace P, van Weel C. (2004) The state of primary-care research. Lancet 364:1004–1006.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
4 De Maeseneer JM and De Sutter A. (2004) Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question. Ann Fam Med 2:suppl 2, S17–S22.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||