Skip to main content
PMC home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 1998 May;48(430):1229–1232.

The content and methodology of research papers published in three United Kingdom primary care journals.

T Thomas 1, T Fahey 1, M Somerset 1
PMCID: PMC1410169  PMID: 9692280

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the expansion of academic departments, the National Research and Development initiative, and the Culyer report, United Kingdom (UK) general practice research is undergoing a period of investment and change. AIM: To examine the content and methodological quality of UK-published general practice research, and in particular to focus on the quantity and proportion of studies that were of high methodological quality, namely randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHOD: We manually searched three UK-published journals over a five-year period: the British Journal of General Practice (BJGP), Family Practice, and the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which has a section devoted to general practice research. Studies were classified according to the International Classification of Health Problems of Primary Health Care (ICHPPC-2). RESULTS: Nearly half of published studies in UK primary care journals were concerned with either organization and administration issues in primary care or social problems (509 studies, 48%). Just over half were either qualitative studies or surveys of opinion or attitudes (528 studies, 50%). The overall number of RCTs was low (67 studies, 6%), and the proportion published has not changed over time (chi 2 for trend = 3.79, df = 1, P = 0.051). In contrast to surgical journals, nearly one-fifth of studies in general practice followed a longitudinal design (186 studies, 18%). CONCLUSIONS: The content and design of published general practice research in the UK is varied and broad. The most robust methodological design should be the aim of all prospective researchers in general practice.

Full text

PDF
1229

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chalmers I. What do I want from health research and researchers when I am a patient? BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1315–1318. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fairhurst K., Dowrick C. Problems with recruitment in a randomized controlled trial of counselling in general practice: causes and implications. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996 Apr;1(2):77–80. doi: 10.1177/135581969600100205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fitzpatrick R., Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care. 1994 Jun;3(2):107–113. doi: 10.1136/qshc.3.2.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Graham I. I believe therefore I practise. Lancet. 1996 Jan 6;347(8993):4–5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91550-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hannay D. R., Campion P. D. University departments of general practice: a changing scene. Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Jan;46(402):35–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hansen J. G., Schmidt H., Rosborg J., Lund E. Predicting acute maxillary sinusitis in a general practice population. BMJ. 1995 Jul 22;311(6999):233–236. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6999.233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet. 1996 Apr 13;347(9007):984–985. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90137-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Howie J. G. Addressing the credibility gap in general practice research: better theory; more feeling; less strategy. Br J Gen Pract. 1996 Aug;46(409):479–481. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Howie J. G. Research in general practice: international problems--international solutions. Fam Pract. 1994 Dec;11(4):351–357. doi: 10.1093/fampra/11.4.351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jonker P. L., Sumajow C. A. Randomised clinical trials in general practice. BMJ. 1992 Feb 22;304(6825):508–508. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6825.508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McCormick J. Eschewing the predictable. Lancet. 1994 Nov 5;344(8932):1243–1244. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90746-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Murphy E., Mattson B. Qualitative research and family practice: a marriage made in heaven? Fam Pract. 1992 Mar;9(1):85–91. doi: 10.1093/fampra/9.1.85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. O'Dowd T. Research in general practice: who is calling the tune? Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Oct;45(399):515–516. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Owen P. Clinical practice and medical research: bridging the divide between the two cultures. Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Oct;45(399):557–560. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Peto V., Coulter A., Bond A. Factors affecting general practitioners' recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract. 1993 Jun;10(2):207–211. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.2.207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Pitts J. General practice research in the Journal. Br J Gen Pract. 1991 Jan;41(342):34–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pringle M., Churchill R. Randomised controlled trials in general practice. BMJ. 1995 Nov 25;311(7017):1382–1383. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7017.1382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Schulz K. F. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995 Nov 8;274(18):1456–1458. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Silagy C. A., Jewell D. Review of 39 years of randomized controlled trials in the British Journal of General Practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Aug;44(385):359–363. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Silagy C. Developing a register of randomised controlled trials in primary care. BMJ. 1993 Apr 3;306(6882):897–900. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6882.897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Silagy C., Lancaster T. The Cochrane Collaboration in Primary Health Care. Fam Pract. 1993 Dec;10(4):364–365. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.4.364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Stott N. C. Clinical trial in general practice? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982 Oct 2;285(6346):941–944. doi: 10.1136/bmj.285.6346.941. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Thomas S. Antibiotics for cough and purulent sputum. Br Med J. 1978 Nov 11;2(6148):1374–1374. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6148.1374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Tognoni G., Alli C., Avanzini F., Bettelli G., Colombo F., Corso R., Marchioli R., Zussino A. Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. BMJ. 1991 Oct 19;303(6808):969–971. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6808.969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. van Duijn N. P., Brouwer H. J., Lamberts H. Use of symptoms and signs to diagnose maxillary sinusitis in general practice: comparison with ultrasonography. BMJ. 1992 Sep 19;305(6855):684–687. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6855.684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. van Weel C. Primary care: political favourite or scientific discipline? Lancet. 1996 Nov 23;348(9039):1431–1432. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)08116-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES