scholarly journals Improving Health Care Globally: A Critical Review of the Necessity of Family Medicine Research and Recommendations to Build Research Capacity

2004 ◽  
Vol 2 (suppl_2) ◽  
pp. S5-S16 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. van Weel
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Improving Health Care

scholarly journals Supporting Family Medicine Research Capacity: The Critical Role and Current Contributions of US Family Medicine Organizations

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina M. Hester ◽  
Vivian Jiang ◽  
Gillian Bartlett-Esquilant ◽  
Andrew Bazemore ◽  
Jennifer K. Carroll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Workforce Development ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Future Success ◽  
The Family ◽  
Development Data

Background and Objectives: Family medicine is continuously advanced by a reinforcing research enterprise. In the United States, each national family medicine organization contributes to the discipline’s research foundations. We sought to map the unique and interorganizational roles of the eight US family medicine professional organizations participating in Family Medicine for America’s Health (FMAHealth) in supporting family medicine research. Methods: We interviewed leaders and reviewed supporting materials from organizations participating in FMAHealth. We explored existing activities, capacity, and collaboration. We identified areas of strength and opportunities for growth and synergy with respect to how the family of family medicine nurtures family medicine research. Results: The FMAHealth organizations support certain aspects of the family medicine research infrastructure. Six domains were identified through this work: showcasing scholarship, communication and dissemination, workforce development, data-driven initiatives, performing primary research, and advocacy for family medicine research. Each organization’s areas of emphasis differ, but we found substantial collaboration on initiatives across organizations, possibly attributable to the fact that many members belong to more than one organization. Conclusions: Deliberate contributions to each of the six domains identified herein will be important for the future success of family medicine research. Key opportunity areas described here include coordinated and strategic advocacy for increased funding for family medicine research, dedicated investment in training opportunities, protected effort to grow the next generation of family medicine researchers, pilot funding to build a research base for future high-impact research, and infrastructure to facilitate cross-institutional collaboration and data sharing.

scholarly journals Attitudes and Perceptions of Research Among US Family Medicine Department Chairs

2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-103
Author(s):  
Amanda Weidner ◽  
Lars E. Peterson ◽  
Arch G. Mainous ◽  
Bernard Ewigman
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Department Chairs ◽  
High Capacity ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medicine Department ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
The Mean

Background and Objectives: The capacity for research within family medicine has historically been low despite its importance. The aim of this study was to learn more about the perceptions of family medicine department chairs regarding research and its role in their departments and institutions. Methods: We analyzed a 2016 cross-sectional survey with responses from 109/142 (77% response) US chairs of allopathic departments of family medicine (DFMs) regarding departmental research capacity, research experience, and perceptions of research in the department and institution. Results: Most chairs agreed that research is important (91%, n=92) and raises the prestige of the DFM (90%, n=91), though perceptions differ by chair research experience and DFM capacity for research. The mean ideal focus on research (21%, 8% SD) is greater than the actual (12%, 8% SD). Compared to the mean of all departments, those in DFMs with a high capacity for research estimated a higher actual (76% vs 26% and 7%, P<.0001) and ideal (73% vs 30% and 18%, P<.0001) departmental focus on research, as well as a higher ideal institutional focus on research (69% vs 35% and 28%, P=.001), significantly more often than chairs in moderate or minimal capacity DFMs. Those in lower capacity DFMs estimated a greater ideal research focus for their departments than they perceived their institution have. Conclusions: Research is important to chairs of DFMs. DFMs that do not currently have major research enterprises may have the will and training required of their leader to grow. With the right support and resources, these DFMs may increase their research capacity, and subsequently their research productivity to support the needs of the discipline for more family medicine research.

scholarly journals The Current State of Research Capacity in US Family Medicine Departments

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Weidner ◽  
Lars E. Peterson ◽  
Arch G. Mainous ◽  
Avisek Datta ◽  
Bernard Ewigman
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
High Capacity ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Empirical Measure ◽  
Longitudinal Assessment ◽  
Empirical Measures ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Longitudinal Tracking ◽  
The Impact

Background and Objectives: Capacity for conducting family medicine research has grown significantly since the specialty was founded. Many calls to increase this capacity have been published, but there has been no consistent, systematic, and longitudinal assessment. This survey was designed to gather baseline data with an easily replicable set of measures associated with research productivity that can guide and monitor the impact of efforts to build research capacity in US departments of family medicine (DFMs). Methods: We surveyed family medicine department chairs regarding departmental research capacity using well-established empirical measures of capacity (trained research faculty, infrastructure, research leadership, and funding) and a self-assessment. We used bivariate analyses to assess correlation between the empirical measures and the self-assessed stage of research capacity. Results: Self-assessed capacity was significantly associated with every empirical measure. High-capacity departments have more research-trained faculty, more faculty effort, utilize more research “laboratories,” have more faculty serving on federal peer-review panels, more faculty as principal investigators, devote more internal funding to research, and garner larger amounts of funding from more external funding sources than moderate or minimal-capacity departments. Conclusions: US DFMs have made great strides over the past half century in building research capacity. However, much more capacity in family medicine and primary care research is needed to produce new knowledge necessary to improve the health and health care of the nation. Periodic measurement using the simple, replicable, and valid minimum measures of this study provides an opportunity to establish longitudinal tracking of change in research capacity in US DFMs.

Family medicine research capacity in the USA

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Mullen ◽  
Amanda Weidner ◽  
Winston Liaw ◽  
Arch G Mainous ◽  
Christina M Hester ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Research Capacity ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
The Usa

A Scoping Review of Interventions Aimed at Improving Knowledge, Detection Practices and Management of Dementia among Health Professionals (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Krishna Prasad Pathak
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Educational Program ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Learning Activities ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Improving Health Care

BACKGROUND Health professionals (HPs) play a key role in dementia management and detection. However, there is a gap in the literature as to what represents best practice with regard to educating HPs to improve their dementia detection practices and management. OBJECTIVE The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the aggregated studies aimed at improving health care knowledge, detection practices and management of dementia among HPs. METHODS We searched electronically published relevant articles with inclusion criteria; (1) intervention studies aimed at improving HPs practices concerning dementia care and (2) educational interventions focused on nurses and doctors’ knowledge, detection practice and management of dementia. Twenty-five articles fit the inclusion criteria. RESULTS Collaborative programs of practice based workshops, interactive learning activities with community and multi-faced educational program were the most effective. CONCLUSIONS HPs should be supported to improve their knowledge, tackle behavioural problems associated with dementia, be made aware of services and be enabled to engage in more early diagnosis. CLINICALTRIAL no applicable

scholarly journals Portugal's primary health care human resources assessment

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Oliveira Miranda ◽  
P Santos Luis ◽  
M Sarmento
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Human Resources ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Primary Health ◽  
Primary Health Care Services ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background Primary health care services are the cornerstone of all health systems. Having clear data on allocated human resources is essential for planning. This work intended to map and compare the primary health care human resources of the five administrative regions (ARS) of the Portuguese public health system, so that better human resources management can be implemented. Methods The chosen design was a descriptive cross sectional study. Each of the five ARS were divided into primary health care clusters, which included several primary health care units. All of these units periodically sign a “commitment letter”, where they stand their service commitments to the covered population. This includes allocated health professionals (doctors, nurses), and the information is publicly accessible at www.bicsp.min-saude.pt. Data was collected for 2017, the year for which more commitment letters were available. Several ratios were calculated: patients/health professional; patients/doctor (family medicine specialists and residents); patients/nurse and patients/family medicine specialist. Mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values were calculated. Results National patients/health professional ratio was 702 with the mean of the 5 ARS calculated at 674+-7.15% (min 619, max 734) whilst the national patients/doctor ratio was 1247 with the mean of the 5 ARS calculated at 1217+-7.17% (min 1074, max 1290). National patients/nurse ratio was 1607 with the mean of the 5 ARS calculated at 1529+-13.08% (min 1199, max 1701). Finally, national patients/family medicine specialist ratio was 1711 with the mean of the 5 ARS calculated at 1650+-6,36% (min 1551, max 1795). Conclusions Human resources were differently spread across Portugal, with variations between the five ARS in all ratios. The largest differences occur between nursing staff, and may translate into inequities of access, with impact on health results. A more homogeneous human resources allocation should be implemented. Key messages Human resources in the Portuguese primary health care services are not homogeneously allocated. A better and more homogeneous allocation of human resources should be implemented to reduce access health inequities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document