Building family/general practice research capacity

To promote the range of interventions for building family/general practice (family medicine) research capacity, we describe successful international examples. Such examples of interventions that build research capacity focus on diseases and illness research, as well as process research; monitor the output of research in family/general practice (family medicine); increase the number of family medicine research journals; encourage and enable research skills acquisition (including making it part of professional training); strengthen the academic base; and promote research networks and collaborations. The responsibility for these interventions lies with the government, colleges and academies, and universities. There are exciting and varied methods of building research capacity in family medicine.

Research output of Australian general practice: A comparison with medicine, surgery and public health

Objectives: To compare the productivity of Australian general practice in terms of research publications with the productivity of other medical disciplines. Design: A survey of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health publications carried out by manual searching of specific journals and an electronic search of the US National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Main outcome measures: The number of original research publications by Australian general practitioners, physicians, surgeons and public health physicians during 1999; the relative publication rate of Australian general practice, medicine, surgery and public health over the period 1990-1999. Results: Of original research articles published in 1999, GPs authored 65% (17/26) in Australian Family Physician and 3% (3/90) in the Medical Journal of Australia; physicians published 4% and 37%, respectively. The electronic search identified 54 research articles relating to Australian general practice published in 1999 in 21 different journals, only two of which were primary care journals. Over the period 1990-1999, there was a publication rate of one general practice [discipline] article per 1000 GPs in practice per year. Corresponding rates for medicine, surgery and public health were 105/1000, 61/1000 and 148/1000, respectively. Conclusions: There is considerable disparity between the level of research output of general practice and that of the disciplines of medicine, surgery and public health. If we are to have effective general practice research, we urgently need to develop research skills, a supportive infrastructure and a culture that nurtures research.

Perceptions of evidence-based practice: A survey of Australian occupational therapists

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires clinicians to access, appraise and integrate research literature with clinical experience and clients' perspectives. Currently, little is known about occupational therapists' attitudes to EBP, their perception of implementation barriers or their educational needs. A questionnaire reflecting these issues was sent to a proportionate random sample of 1491 members of the national professional occupational therapy association, OT AUSTRALIA. The questionnaire was completed by 649 (44%) participants. Occupational therapists were positive about EBP with most (96%) agreeing that EBP is important to occupational therapy. Although 56% used research to make clinical decisions, more relied on clinical experience (96%), information from continuing education (82%) and colleagues (80%). Lack of time, evidence and skills were identified as the main barriers to the implementation of EBP. Over half (52%) expressed strong interest in EBP skills training, and most (80%) indicated an interest in the availability of brief summaries of evidence. Targeted educational initiatives, resources and systems are needed to support EBP in occupational therapy.

Introducing OTseeker (Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence): A new evidence database for occupational therapists

OTseeker (Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence) is a new resource for occupational therapists that has been designed with the principle aim of increasing access to research to support clinical decisions. It contains abstracts of systematic reviews and quality ratings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to occupational therapy. It is available, free of charge, at www.otseeker.com. This paper describes the OTseeker database and provides an example of how it may support occupational therapy practice.