• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Development of a research agenda for general practice based on knowledge gaps identified in Dutch guidelines and input from 48 stakeholders.基于荷兰指南中的知识空白和 48 位利益相关者的意见,为一般实践制定研究议程。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):19-24. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
2
Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: The views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe.提高欧洲全科医学研究能力的策略:EGPRN 和 Wonca Europe 成员的观点。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):25-31. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1546282. Epub 2019 Jan 4.
3
Physicians' views on joint treatment guidelines for primary and secondary care.医生对初级和二级医疗关节治疗指南的看法。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2004 Jun;16(3):229-36. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzh038.
4
Associations between degrees of task delegation and adherence to COPD guidelines on spirometry testing in general practice - a national cross-sectional study.在一般实践中,任务委托程度与 COPD 肺功能测试指南的遵循情况之间的关联 - 一项全国性的横断面研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 8;19(1):464. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4270-3.
5
General practice research: an investment to improve the health of all Australians.全科医学研究:一项旨在改善全体澳大利亚人健康状况的投资。
Med J Aust. 2020 May;212(9):398-400.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50589. Epub 2020 Apr 26.
6
Reducing the use of out-of-hours primary care services: A survey among Dutch general practitioners.减少非工作时间初级医疗服务的使用:一项针对荷兰全科医生的调查。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2016 Sep;22(3):189-95. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2016.1178718. Epub 2016 Jun 1.
7
Implementation of evidence-based knowledge in general practice.循证医学知识在全科医疗中的应用。
Dan Med J. 2017 Dec;64(12).
8
Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care - methodological considerations for establishing prioritization criteria and recommendations in general practice.防范医疗保健的过度使用和使用不足——在全科医疗中建立优先排序标准和建议的方法学考量
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 11;18(1):768. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3569-9.
9
[Research in the GP's practice is good for the health of all].全科医生诊所的研究对所有人的健康都有益。
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2017;161:D1996.
10
Management of type 2 diabetes: Australian rural and remote general practitioners' knowledge, attitudes, and practices.2型糖尿病的管理:澳大利亚农村及偏远地区全科医生的知识、态度和实践
Rural Remote Health. 2014;14:2499. Epub 2014 Mar 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Prioritizing orthopaedic evidence uncertainties : expert consensus based on a modified DELPHI study and a focus group.确定骨科证据的不确定性优先级:基于改进的德尔菲研究和焦点小组的专家共识
Bone Jt Open. 2025 Feb 18;6(2):206-214. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.62.BJO-2024-0053.R1.
2
Challenges in developing national orthopedic health research agendas in the Netherlands: process overview and recommendations.荷兰制定国家骨科健康研究议程面临的挑战:过程概述及建议。
Acta Orthop. 2023 May 17;94:230-235. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.12402.
3
Complex skills are required for new primary health care researchers: a training program responds.新的基层医疗研究人员需要掌握复杂的技能:一个培训计划做出了回应。
BMC Med Educ. 2022 Jul 22;22(1):565. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03620-3.
4
Digital technologies in primary care: Implications for patient care and future research.数字技术在初级保健中的应用:对患者护理和未来研究的影响。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2022 Dec;28(1):203-208. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2022.2052041.
5
The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe.EGPRN 欧洲全科医学研究策略。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2022 Dec;28(1):136-141. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2022.2080815.
6
General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review.全科医生对非癌性疼痛使用阿片类药物的态度:一项定性系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2022 Feb 1;12(2):e054945. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054945.
7
European primary care research and a national general practice research agenda.欧洲初级保健研究与国家全科医学研究议程。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):3-4. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1559568.
8
Research agenda in family medicine-should we adopt the Dutch approach?家庭医学研究议程——我们应该采用荷兰的方法吗?
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):5-6. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2019.1571733. Epub 2019 Feb 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Towards efficient use of research resources: a nationwide database of ongoing primary care research projects in the Netherlands.迈向研究资源的高效利用:荷兰全国正在进行的初级保健研究项目数据库。
Fam Pract. 2014 Apr;31(2):229-35. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmt067. Epub 2013 Nov 25.
2
A sustainable primary care system: lessons from the Netherlands.一个可持续的初级保健系统:来自荷兰的经验教训。
J Ambul Care Manage. 2012 Jul-Sep;35(3):174-81. doi: 10.1097/JAC.0b013e31823e83a4.
3
Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis.澳大利亚、加拿大、德国、荷兰、英国和美国的初级保健研究产出:文献计量分析。
BMJ. 2011 Mar 8;342:d1028. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d1028.
4
The Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Healthcare in Europe: a solid basis for innovative research.欧洲全科医学/家庭医学与初级卫生保健研究议程:创新研究的坚实基础。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2010 Mar;16(1):2-3. doi: 10.3109/13814781003608063.
5
The Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe. Part 1. Background and methodology.《欧洲普通科/家庭医学与基层医疗研究议程》。第 1 部分:背景与方法。
Eur J Gen Pract. 2009 Dec;15(4):243-50. doi: 10.3109/13814780903452184.
6
Improving health care globally: a critical review of the necessity of family medicine research and recommendations to build research capacity.改善全球医疗保健:对家庭医学研究必要性的批判性审视及增强研究能力的建议
Ann Fam Med. 2004 May 26;2 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S5-16. doi: 10.1370/afm.194.
7
The state of primary-care research.初级保健研究的现状。
Lancet. 2004;364(9438):1004-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17027-X.
8
Primary care: core values. Core values in a changing world.初级保健:核心价值观。变化世界中的核心价值观。
BMJ. 1998 Jun 13;316(7147):1807-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7147.1807.
9
The Netherlands. Research in general practice.荷兰。全科医学研究。
Lancet. 1996 May 4;347(9010):1236-8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90745-x.

基于荷兰指南中的知识空白和 48 位利益相关者的意见,为一般实践制定研究议程。

Development of a research agenda for general practice based on knowledge gaps identified in Dutch guidelines and input from 48 stakeholders.

机构信息

a Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands.

b Dutch College of General Practitioners , Utrecht , The Netherlands.

出版信息

Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):19-24. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993. Epub 2018 Nov 26.

DOI:10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993
PMID:30474455
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6394312/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Several funding organizations using different agendas support research in general practice. Topic selection and prioritization are often not coordinated, which may lead to duplication and research waste.

OBJECTIVES

To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare.

METHODS

We reviewed knowledge gaps from 90 Dutch general practice guidelines and formulated research questions based on these gaps. In addition, we asked 96 healthcare stakeholders to add research questions relevant for general practice. All research questions were prioritized by practising general practitioners in an online survey (n = 232) and by participants of an invitational conference including general practitioners (n = 48) and representatives of other stakeholders in healthcare (n = 16), e.g. patient organizations and medical specialists.

RESULTS

We identified 787 research questions. These were categorized in two ways: according to the chapters of the International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) and in 12 themes such as common conditions, person-centred care and patient education, collaboration and organization of care. The prioritizing procedure resulted in top 10 lists of research questions for each ICPC chapter and each theme.

CONCLUSION

The process resulted in a widely supported National Research Agenda for General Practice. We encourage both researchers and funding organizations to use this agenda to focus their research on the most relevant issues in general practice and to generate new evidence for the next generation of guidelines and the future of general practice.

摘要

背景

一些使用不同议程的资助组织支持一般实践的研究。主题选择和优先级通常不协调,这可能导致重复和研究浪费。

目的

制定一个涉及一般实践医生、研究人员、患者和其他相关医疗保健利益相关者的全国性一般实践研究议程。

方法

我们审查了 90 项荷兰一般实践指南中的知识差距,并根据这些差距制定了研究问题。此外,我们还要求 96 名医疗保健利益相关者提出与一般实践相关的研究问题。所有研究问题都由执业全科医生在在线调查(n=232)和包括全科医生(n=48)和其他医疗保健利益相关者(例如患者组织和医学专家)的特邀会议参与者(n=16)进行优先排序。

结果

我们确定了 787 个研究问题。这些问题以两种方式进行分类:根据国际初级保健分类(ICPC)的章节和 12 个主题,如常见疾病、以患者为中心的护理和患者教育、护理的协作和组织。优先级排序程序导致每个 ICPC 章节和每个主题的前 10 个研究问题列表。

结论

该过程产生了一个得到广泛支持的国家一般实践研究议程。我们鼓励研究人员和资助组织使用该议程,将研究重点放在一般实践中最相关的问题上,并为下一代指南和一般实践的未来生成新的证据。