Skip Navigation

Family Practice 2007 24(3):207-208; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmm031
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Delaney, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Delaney, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Editorial

Engaging practitioners in research; time to change the values of practice rather than the way research is carried out?

Brendan Delaney

Editor, Family Practice, Professor of Primary Care, The University of Birmingham, Primary Care Clinical Sciences Building, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK; Email: b.c.delaney@bham.ac.uk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

The paper by Salmon et al.1 challenges many of the agreed international ‘norms’ for engaging practitioners in research projects. A group of UK researchers explore the reasons why only 67 out of 1934 family practitioners contacted agreed to take part in a study. We have all assumed that making time and resource available for practices, engaging practitioners in the design and prioritization of research projects and increasing their own research skills would increase the volume of research carried out in primary care. Indeed, much of the past 14 years' initiatives in the UK, from primary care research networks, research capacity development programmes and now the UK Clinical Research Collaboration2, have been founded on these principles. Salmon et al. find that it is not ‘time, money and lack . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Declaration


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
P. Bower, P. Wallace, E. Ward, J. Graffy, J. Miller, B. Delaney, and A. L. Kinmonth
Improving recruitment to health research in primary care
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2009; 26(5): 391 - 397.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Fam PractHome page
M. Jansen, J. Harting, N. Ebben, B. Kroon, J. Stappers, E. Van Engelshoven, and N. de Vries
The concept of sustainability and the use of outcome indicators. A case study to continue a successful health counselling intervention
Fam. Pract., December 1, 2008; 25(suppl_1): i32 - i37.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
B. C Delaney, M. Qume, P. Moayyedi, R. F A Logan, A. C Ford, C. Elliott, C. McNulty, S. Wilson, and F D R. Hobbs
Helicobacter pylori test and treat versus proton pump inhibitor in initial management of dyspepsia in primary care: multicentre randomised controlled trial (MRC-CUBE trial)
BMJ, March 22, 2008; 336(7645): 651 - 654.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]