Atherton Helen, Gronlund Toto, Eccles Abi, Bryce Carol, Martin Angela, Pope Catherine
Primary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Aldermoor Health Centre, Southampton, UK.
Patient and Public Co-investigator, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 Apr 9:1-9. doi: 10.3310/WBWD8844.
Access to general practice is a concern for policy-makers, politicians, service providers and the public. We conducted a study to examine what happens in the long term to general practices that have introduced innovations designed to improve access to appointments. Recognising the importance of ensuring research findings are transferable to those using them, we used collaborative workshops to aid the development of our study outputs.
We held three sequential interactive workshops. These covered (1) early findings of the study, (2) what evidence-based resources attendees use and (3) what resources they would like to see produced. We sought to include 6-12 people from staff from practices participating in the wider research study, from primary care networks, from partnership boards of integrated care systems, clinical commissioners, professional bodies, National Health Service bodies and independent think tanks. The first two workshops were online, the final was in-person. Workshops were facilitated by the research team, including the patient and public involvement lead. A research team member took detailed notes.
Workshop 1 had 12 attendees; workshop 2 had 9 attendees, of which 7 were also at the previous workshop; workshop 3 had 7 attendees, of whom 6 had attended a previous workshop. From these workshops, we gained insights that helped us to validate our interpretation of the study data. We observed the competing interests and needs of different groups, who have different perspectives on the value of research evidence. Outputs that are brief, written in lay terms and widely publicised appear to be of especial value.
The range of stakeholders included was less varied than intended; this was in part due to the commitment involved in attending, and this may limit the inclusivity of the findings.
This approach could be used in future studies to ensure that stakeholder interests are included in study dissemination plans.
This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme as award number NIHR133620.
全科医疗服务的可及性是政策制定者、政治家、服务提供者和公众关注的问题。我们开展了一项研究，以考察引入旨在改善预约服务可及性的创新措施后的全科医疗长期情况。认识到确保研究结果能够应用于实际使用者的重要性，我们利用协作研讨会来促进研究成果的产出。
我们举办了三场连续的互动式研讨会。内容包括（1）研究的早期发现，（2）参会者使用的循证资源，以及（3）他们希望看到产出的资源。我们力求邀请6至12人参加，这些人员来自参与更广泛研究的医疗机构工作人员、初级保健网络、综合医疗系统的合作委员会、临床专员、专业团体、国民医疗服务体系机构以及独立智库。前两场研讨会在线举行，最后一场为线下会议。研讨会由研究团队主持，包括患者及公众参与负责人。一名研究团队成员做了详细记录。
研讨会1有12名参会者；研讨会2有9名参会者，其中7人也参加了前一场研讨会；研讨会3有7名参会者，其中6人参加过前一场研讨会。通过这些研讨会，我们获得了有助于验证我们对研究数据解读的见解。我们观察到不同群体相互竞争的利益和需求，他们对研究证据的价值有不同看法。简短、通俗易懂且广泛传播的产出似乎具有特别的价值。
所纳入的利益相关者范围不如预期广泛；部分原因是参会需要投入精力，这可能会限制研究结果的包容性。
这种方法可用于未来的研究，以确保在研究传播计划中纳入利益相关者的利益。
本文介绍了由英国国家卫生与保健研究所（NIHR）健康与社会保健交付研究计划资助的独立研究，资助编号为NIHR133620。
