ArticleBMC primary care2026
Sustainable implementation of practice-based research networks in primary care: a qualitative process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo expand research in general practice, the development of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) has increased considerably in Germany over the last years. In order to implement these structures sustainably and effectively in primary care, it is important to understand the perspective of the GP teams on their role and their experiences in conducting clinical studies within PBRNs. The aim of this analysis was to examine the experiences of GP teams after the implementation and conduct of clinical studies within in the Bavarian Practice-Based Research Network (BayFoNet) retrospectively to derive insights for a sustainable implementation of a German PBRN in primary care.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews based on the theoretical concept of the "Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research" with practices, which were already members of BayFoNet. The verbatim transcripts were analysed based on Kuckartz's qualitative content analysis.
resultsInterviews were conducted with 16 GPs and one medical assistant (MA). As main drivers for a sustainable implementation of a primary care based PBRNs could be identified aspects of intervention characteristics (study design and a research question), the inner setting (teamwork), individual aspects (professional training) as well as facilitators on the level of the outer setting (contribution to evidence and quality). As barriers we identified a reduced interest of the study participants early processes (preparatory steps and participation) as well as missed networking options among peers (inner setting). DISCUSSION: The perspective of the GP teams within our process evaluation confirmed some already known aspects, like the importance of professional development of the practice staff, contribution to evidence, quality and strength in general practice and networking needs. As increasing research-specific experience with clinical research sharpened their needs and requirements, desired processes of participation and the role of non-physician staff in PBRNs have to be further elaborated.
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.