背景:为初级保健政策和实践提供信息的研究证据对于建立高性能的初级保健系统至关重要。然而,与初级保健相关的研究产出在全球范围内仍然很低。这项研究描述了与初级保健研究人员的研究生产率相关的因素。
方法:定性,使用描述性关键线人研究方法对加拿大23名初级保健研究人员进行半结构化访谈.定性数据采用反身性主题分析。
结果:23名初级保健研究人员参与了这项研究。个人(心理特征,性别,种族,为人父母,教育,配偶职业,和支持),专业(任命前的指导,国家合作,研究类型,职业生涯长度),机构(领导,文化,资源,受保护的时间,导师,type),和系统(资金,系统偏差,环境,国际合作,研究数据基础设施)因素被认为与研究生产率相关。研究机构和导师促进了合作,导师和研究类型使资助成功。初级保健研究人员较少的司法管辖区有更多的国家合作,但资助机会较少。制度的结合,专业,和系统因素是女性和/或种族研究人员研究生产力的障碍。
结论:这项研究阐明了对初级保健研究人员的研究生产率的交叉和多方面的影响。通过探索个人,专业,机构,和系统性因素,我们强调了不同元素在塑造RP中的关键作用。了解这些复杂的影响者是必要的,在学术机构和资助机构层面采取基于证据的干预措施和政策,以优化资源,推广公平的评价指标,并在加拿大的PC学科中培养有利于多样化研究的包容性环境。
BACKGROUND: Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This
study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.
METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive key informant
study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the
study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and
system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and
system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.
CONCLUSIONS: This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.