ArticleBJGP open2024
Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'It's what we should be doing anyway': using financial incentives to promote relational continuity in Australian General Practice-a nested case study analysis.Family practice · 2025Trial
- Review
- Competing epistemologies: a reflexive thematic analysis of research in general practice.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- The benefits for health care staff of involvement in applied health research: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms that might underlie that relationship.
aimTo explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity may impact on the performance of general practices. DESIGN &
settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England.
methodIndividual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research-ready' or 'research-active' general practices, and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a framework approach.
resultsParticipants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included improved knowledge and skills that could change practice work (for example, additional records searches for particular conditions); bringing in additional resources (for example, access to investigations or staff); and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (for example, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout); and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Responders identified few negative impacts.
conclusionStaff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, responders generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.