General Practitioners' Experience of Research

摘要

In 1993, a Men's Health Study was conducted in five mainland capital cities of Australia to determine prevalence of urinary symptoms among male patients. Patients completed a questionnaire in the waiting room before seeing the general practitioner who later completed a checklist. Various strategies were used to encourage participation by general practitioners in the research and to maintain the quality of data collection, including the use of local co-ordinators seconded from a pharmaceutical company. The aim of the study was to obtain feedback from participants about strategies used to encourage their participation, ways to improve the study and future research topics. One hundred and thirty-four general practitioners completed self-administered questionnaires (82response rate). The three most encouraging factors were the research topic itself, a telephone call from a medical member of the research team before receiving a letter about the research and a face-to-face visit by the local co-ordinator to explain the study before consent. Reactivity of patients and practitioners themselves to research requirements was perceived both positively and negatively. To improve the study, respondents suggested providing more information about the study to participating doctors and designing a patient questionnaire to involve non-English-speaking patients. Fifty-two per cent suggested topics for future research. The most frequently suggested topics were smoking, other cardiovascular risk reduction interventions, hormone replacement therapy, alcohol and exercise. It was concluded that general practitioners are influenced less by the names and track record of the research team than the research topic itself and the personal approaches used to obtain consent. Curiously, respondents' suggested topics for future research are popular already for scholarship and publication. As these topics are virtually identical to those elicited from general practitioners by Silagy and Carson nearly 6 years ago, four explanations for these persistent themes are offered. Each invites a response from divisions of general practice, academic researchers and individual general practitioners.