A mixed studies literature review of family physicians' participation in research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family physicians' recruitment and adherence in research are challenging. This mixed studies literature review sought to identify the extent of family physicians' participation in primary health care research, as well as facilitators and inhibitors of their recruitment and subsequent protocol adherence in research projects. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and BioMed Central Medical Research Methodology by using an explicit strategy. Sixty-two articles met predetermined selection criteria. Using a mixed method approach, we performed a content analysis of the results published in these articles to synthesize factors affecting family physicians' participation in research. RESULTS: Recruitment rates varied between 2% and 81%. The most frequent types of participation requested were completion of questionnaires (48%) and recruitment of patients (37%). We found that family physicians' personal/professional factors mainly affected recruitment, practice/patient-related issues mainly affected adherence, and study protocol characteristics facilitated both recruitment and adherence of family physicians in research. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a synthesis of knowledge about factors mediating family physicians' roles in research. Our findings offer material for researchers to create checklists to help create and operationalize protocols that respect local clinical and research realities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".