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.
Eur J Gen Pract. 2019 Jan;25(1):19-24. doi: 10.1080/13814788.2018.1532993. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
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.
To develop systematically a national research agenda for general practice involving general practitioners, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders in healthcare.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。