Primary health care is the foundation of effective, sustainable population health and is associated with higher patient satisfaction and reduced aggregate health spending.
Although improving patient care requires a sound evidence base, rigorously designed studies remain under-represented in primary care research.
The pace of research activity in general practice and the rate and quality of publications do not match the pace of structural change or the level of funding provided.
Recruitment difficulties are a major impediment, fuelled by general practitioners’ time constraints, lack of remuneration, non-recognition, and workforce shortages.
Radical reform is required to redress imbalances in funding allocation, including: funding of GP Research Network infrastructure costs; formalising relationships between primary care researchers and academic departments of general practice and rural health; and mandating that research funding bodies consider only proposals that include in the budget nominal payments for GP participation and salaries for dedicated research nurses.
- 1. Starfield B, Shi LY, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q 2005; 83: 457-502.
- 2. Atun RA. What are the advantages and disadvantages of restructuring a health care system to be more focussed on primary care services? World Health Organization Health Evidence Network Report. Copenhagen: WHO, 2004.
- 3. Mant D. R&D in primary care. National Working Group Report. Wetherby, UK: Department of Health, 1997. (Report No. 97CC0138.) Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/02/41/50/04024150.pdf (accessed Jun 2006).
- 4. Medical Research Council. Primary health care research review. MRC topic review. London: Medical Research Council, 1997.
- 5. Horton R. Evidence and primary care. Lancet 1999; 353: 609-610.
- 6. McAvoy BR. Primary care research — what in the world is going on? Med J Aust 2005; 183: 110-112. <MJA full text>
- 7. Mendis K, Solangaarachchi I. PubMed perspective of family medicine research: where does it stand? Fam Pract 2005; 22: 570-575.
- 8. Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, et al, editors. Primary care, America’s health in a new era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
- 9. Richards AM. Funding of biomedical research in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2000; 113: 400-403.
- 10. Howe A. Is primary care research a lost cause [letter]? Lancet 2003; 361: 1473-1474.
- 11. Askew DA, Glasziou PP, Del Mar CB. Research output of Australian general practice: a comparison with medicine, surgery and public health. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 77-80.
- 12. Ward AM, Lopez DG, Kamien M. General practice research in Australia, 1980–1999. Med J Aust 2000; 173: 608-611. <MJA full text>
- 13. Hunt CJ, Shepherd LM, Andrews G. Do doctors know best? Comments on a failed trial. Med J Aust 2001; 174: 144-146. <MJA full text>
- 14. Rudd C, Steed D. The structural organisation of general practice. In: General Practice in Australia: 2000. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, 2000: 197-232. Available at: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pcd-publications-gpinoz2000-index.htm (accessed Jun 2006).
- 15. Australian Divisions of General Practice. National Innovations Funding Pool Projects [website]. Available at: http://innovations.adgp.com.au/site/index.cfm (accessed Jun 2006).
- 16. Hancock B, Wilson S. Valuing primary care research: gold not alchemy. Primary Health Care Res Devel 2006; 7: 10-12.
- 17. Gunn J. Should Australia develop primary care research networks? Med J Aust 2002; 177: 63-66. <MJA full text>
- 18. Oceania Health Consulting. Evaluation of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development Strategy. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2005: Available at: http://www.phcris.org.au/phcred/evaluation_report.php (accessed Jun 2006).
- 19. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki as adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964.
- 20. Veitch C, Hollins J, Worley P, et al. General practice research: problems and solutions in participant recruitment and retention. Aust Fam Physician 2001; 30: 399-406.
- 21. James EL, Talbot L. Conducting research in general practice: lessons learnt from experience. Health Promot J Austr 2005; 16: 41-46.
- 22. Krum H, Tonkin A, Piterman L. Bush telegraph: improving outcomes for rural and remote patients with chronic heart failure. Aust Fam Physician 2004; 33: 76-77.
- 23. Barnett L, Holden L, Donoghue D, et al. What’s needed to increase research capacity in rural primary health care? Aust J Primary Health 2005; 11: 45-51.
- 24. Abhayaratna WP, Smith WT, Becker NG, et al. Prevalence of heart failure and systolic ventricular dysfunction in older Australians: the Canberra Heart Study. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 151-154. <MJA full text>
- 25. McAvoy BR, Kaner EFS. General practice postal surveys: a questionnaire too far? BMJ 1996; 313: 732-733.
- 26. Peto V, Coulter A, Bond A. Factors affecting general practitioners’ recruitment of patients into a prospective study. Fam Pract 1993; 10: 207-211.
- 27. Asch S, Connor SE, Hamilton EG, et al. Problems in recruiting community-based physicians for health services research. J Gen Intern Med 2000; 15: 591-599.
- 28. Minas H, Klimids S, Kokanovic R. Mental health research in general practice. Australas Psychiatry 2005; 13: 181-184.
- 29. The National Primary Care Collaborative [website]. Available at: http://www.npdt.org/scripts/default.asp?site_id=5 (accessed Jun 2006).
- 30. Reid CM, Ryan P, Nelson M, et al. General practitioner participation in the Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study (ANBP2). Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2001; 28: 663-667.
- 31. Pearl A, Wright S, Gamble G, et al. Randomised trials in general practice — a New Zealand experience in recruitment. J N Z Med Assoc 2003; 116: 681-688.
- 32. Green LA, White LL, Barry HC, et al. Infrastructure requirements for practice-based research networks. Ann Fam Med 2005; 3: S5-S11.
- 33. O’Dowd T. Research in general practice: who is calling the tune [editorial]? Br J Gen Pract 1995; 45: 515-516.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.