- Title
- How generalisable are results of studies conducted in practice-based research networks?: a cross-sectional study of general practitioner demographics in two New South Wales networks
- Creator
- Magin, Parker J.; Marshall, Melanie J.; Goode, Susan M.; Cotter, Georgina L.; Pond, C. Dimity; Zwar, Nicholas A.
- Relation
- Medical Journal of Australia Vol. 195, Issue 4, p. 210-213
- Relation
- https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2011/195/4/how-generalisable-are-results-studies-conducted-practice-based-research-networks?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D57d9eb03a4603aee5f942fb4d477b5c4
- Publisher
- Australasian Medical Publishing Company
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Date
- 2011
- Description
- Objective: To compare the demographics of general practitioners in two practice-based research networks (PBRNs) and to explore the generalisability of research findings from these PBRNs. Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study of two geographically-based PBRNs — Hunter New England Central Coast Network of Research General Practices (NRGP) and Primary Healthcare Research Network-General Practice (PHReNet-GP) — during August–September 2010. All 183 GP members of both PBRNs were invited to participate; of these, 140 (77%) participated. Main outcome measures: GPs’ demographics, use of languages other than English in consultations, and previous participation in research. Practices’ use of practice nurses. Socioeconomic status and rurality or urbanicity of practice location. Results: Compared with PHReNet-GP GPs, NRGP GPs were more likely to work in a practice employing a practice nurse (100% v 53.8%; 95% CI for difference, 30.5%–61.8%; P < 0.001), worked in larger practices (2.9 more full-time-equivalent GPs per practice; 95% CI, 2.1–3.6; P < 0.001), and were less likely to work in a major city (33.7% v 89.7%; 95% CI for difference, 42.8%–69.3%; P < 0.001). NRGP GPs also worked in practices with a different spectrum of socioeconomic disadvantage, and were less likely to have been involved in research as a researcher (35.4% v 76.9%; 95% CI for difference, 25.3%–57.8%; P < 0.001). Fewer NRGP GPs consulted in languages other than English (8.9% v 64.1%; 95% CI for difference, 39.1%–71.2%; P < 0.001). There were also differences between these and national general practice statistics. Conclusions: These results suggest possible lack of generalisability of findings from some types of studies conducted in single PBRNs. In such circumstances, collaboration of PBRNs may produce more generalisable results.
- Subject
- general practioners; general practioner demographics; practice nurses; practice-based research networks; New South Wales; GPs
- Identifier
- http://hdl.handle.net/1959.13/1045666
- Identifier
- uon:14496
- Identifier
- ISSN:0025-729X
- Language
- eng
- Reviewed
- Hits: 1640
- Visitors: 1926
- Downloads: 0
| Thumbnail | File | Description | Size | Format |
|---|