• William R Phillips, Elizabeth Sturgiss, Liesbeth Hunik, Paul Glasziou, Tim Olde Olde, Aaron Orkin, Joanne Reeve, Grant M Russell, and Chris van Weel.
• From the University of Washington, Seattle, WA (WRP); Monash University, Melbourne, Australia (ES, GMR); Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (LH); Bond University, Robina, Australia (PG); Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands (TOH, CVW); University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (AO); Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK (JR); Australia National University, Canberra, Australia (CVW). wphllps@uw.edu.
• J Am Board Fam Med. 2021 Jan 1; 34 (1): 12-21.

PurposeTo assess opportunities to improve reporting of primary care (PC) research to better meet the needs of its varied users.MethodsInternational, interprofessional online survey of PC researchers and users, 2018 to 2019. Respondents used Likert scales to rate frequency of difficulties in interpreting, synthesizing, and applying PC research reports. Free-text short answers were categorized by template analysis to record experiences, concerns, and suggestions. Areas of need were checked across existing reporting guidelines.ResultsSurvey yielded 255 respondents across 24 nations, including 138 women (54.1%), 169 physicians (60%), 32 scientists (11%), 20 educators (7%), and 18 public health professionals (6%). Overall, 37.4% indicated difficulties using PC research reports "50% or more of the time." The most common problems were synthesizing findings (58%) and assessing generalizability (42%). Difficulty was reported by 49% for qualitative, 46% for mixed methods, and 38% for observational research. Most users wanted richer reporting of theoretical foundation (53.7%); teams, roles, and organization of care (53.4%); and patient involvement in the research process (52.7%). Few reported difficulties with ethics or disclosure of funding or conflicts. Free-text answers described special challenges in reporting PC research: context of clinical care and setting; practical details of interventions; patient-clinician and team relationships; and generalizability, applicability and impact in the great variety of PC settings. Cross-check showed that few current reporting guidelines focus on these needs.ConclusionsOpportunities exist to improve the reporting of PC research to make it more useful for its many users, suggesting a role for a PC research reporting guideline.© Copyright 2021 by the American Board of Family Medicine.

16 keywords...

hide…