Kenning Cassandra, Usher-Smith Juliet A, Jamison James, Jones Jennifer, Boaz Annette, Little Paul, Mallen Christian, Bower Peter, Park Sophie
Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
BJGP Open. 2024 Oct 29;8(3). doi: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0073. Print 2024 Oct.
There 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.
To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity may impact on the performance of general practices.
DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England.
Individual 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.
Participants 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.
Staff 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.
有证据表明参与研究与更好的表现直接相关。若要加强这种关系，有必要了解可能构成这种关系基础的机制。
探讨工作人员及更广泛利益相关者对于研究活动可能影响全科医疗服务表现的机制的看法。
采用半结构化访谈对英格兰的全科医疗专业人员及更广泛利益相关者进行定性研究。
对41名从“具备研究条件”或“积极开展研究”的全科医疗服务机构中有意抽样的工作人员以及21名其他利益相关者进行个人访谈。三名研究人员采用框架方法对访谈进行独立编码。
参与者描述了对其工作可能产生的“直接”和“间接”影响。“直接”影响包括知识和技能的提升，这可能改变实际工作（例如，针对特定病症进行更多记录检索）；带来额外资源（例如，获得检查或工作人员）；以及改善与患者的关系。“间接”影响包括工作满意度（例如，将医疗机构视为卓越和创新中心的认知，以及研究活动带来的多样性减少职业倦怠）；以及员工招聘（提高医疗机构作为工作场所的吸引力）。受访者指出的负面影响很少。
工作人员和利益相关者确定了研究活动对医疗服务表现的一系列潜在影响，其中对他们工作生活的影响最为显著。一般未提及负面影响。然而，受访者通常讨论的是潜在影响，而非提供这些影响的具体例子。这可能反映了全科医疗服务中开展的研究活动的类型，这类活动通常由外部合作者主导。
