Family and General Physicians Research Productivity

José Manuel Ramírez Aranda; Celina Gómez Gómez; Luis Enrique Fuentes Flores

2003, Number 2

<< Back

Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc 2003; 41 (2)

Family and General Physicians Research Productivity

Ramírez AJM, Gómez GC, Fuentes FLE

Full text

How to cite this article

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 175-180
PDF size: 126.30 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate research productivity in primary-care practitioners and the reasons why they do not undertake research. Material and Methods: A total of 173 of 250 physicians attending the III International Congress of Family Physicians were surveyed in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi square and Cramer V tests. Results: The answer rate was 69.2 %. The average age was 42 ± 8.5 years. There was no difference as far as gender was concerned. Fifty five percent were general practitioners and 37.5 % were family physicians. Research work has been done by 39.2 % of the total sample but just 10 % published scientific articles. Only 36 % had received formal training in research. There was statistical association between receiving formal research courses and publication of articles (p = 0.002), as well as research courses and publishing scientific papers as first author (p ‹ 0.001). Most respondents were interested in doing research (84 %). Reasons for not doing research were: lack of information and opportunity for being involved in research 20 %; lack of formal training in investigation 18 %. Conclusions: Family physicians and general practitioners are not doing abundant research nor are they publishing their scientific work. Research productivity is associated to formal research training.

REFERENCES

1. Hojat M, Gonnella JS, Xu G. Gender comparison of young physicians perceptions of their medical education professional life, and practice: A follow-up study of Jefferson Medical College graduates. Acad Med 1995;70(4):305-312.
2. Nobigrot KD, Nobigrot SM, Galván HS. Las actitudes hacia la investigación y el aprendizaje en estudiantes de medicina, UNAM: 1984-1994. Salud Publica Mex 1995;37(4):316-322.
3. Culpepper L. Family medicine research: Major needs. Fam Med 1991;23:10-14.
4. Fischer PM. A note to family medicine researchers. J Fam Pract 1994;39:221-224.
5. Murata PJ, Lynch WD, Puffer JC, Green LA. Atti-tudes towards and experience in research among family medicine chairs. J Fam Pract 1992;35:417-421.
6. Bass M. Why are we doing so little clinical research? Part I. Lecture delivered at the Trillium Research Conference University of Toronto, Ontario; 1999.
7. Ebell MH, Frame P. What can technology do to and for family medicine? Fam Med 2001;33(4):311-319.
8. Herbert CP. The future of family medicine: Research. J Fam Pract 2001; 50 (7). Disponible en: http://www.jfponline.com/content/2001/07/jfp_0701_05810.asp.
9. Hueston WJ. Factors associated with research efforts of academic family physicians. J Fam Pract 1993;37:44-48.
Oeffinger KC, Roaten SP Jr, Ader DN, Buchanan RJ. Support and rewards for scholarly activity in family medicine: A national survey. Fam Med 1997;29:508-512.
Hueston WJ. A comparison of university and community-based family practice physician edu-cators. Fam Med 1993;25:576-579.
Pérez TR. Ciencia básica y ciencia aplicada. Salud Publica Mex 2001;43:368-372.
De Haven MJ, Wilson GR, Murphice DD, Grundig JV. Family Practice Residency program director’s view on research. Fam Med 1997;29(1):33-37.
Mills OF, Zyzanski SJ, Flacks S. Factors associated with research productivity in family practice resi-dencies. Fam Med 1995;27(3):188-193
Katerndhal DA. Association between departmental features and departmental scholarly activity. Fam Med 1996;28(2):119-127.
Plan Único de Especializaciones Médicas. Medicina Familiar. Universidad Autónoma de México. Facultad de Medicina División de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación; 1994.