scholarly journals The Importance of Primary Care Research in Understanding Health Inequities in the United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-852
Author(s):  
John Heintzman ◽  
Miguel Marino
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (43) ◽  
pp. 2589
Author(s):  
Leonardo Ferreira Fontenelle ◽  
Miguel Henrique Moraes de Oliveira ◽  
Stephani Vogt Rossi ◽  
Diego José Brandão ◽  
Thiago Dias Sarti

Introduction: Authors choose scholarly journals not only to advance their careers but also to interact with their respective scholarly communities. Objective: To describe the journals where family and community physicians in Brazil publish their work. Methods: In late 2018, we compiled a nationwide list of family and community physicians, and downloaded their curricula from the Lattes Platform. We extracted data on their complete journal articles from their curricula, completed these data with queries to CrossRef, VHL/LILACS, and PubMed/MEDLINE, and obtained data on the journals with queries to the United States NLM Catalog. Results: We found 3558 unique articles, published by 1011 journals. The most productive journal was RBMFC (Revista Brasileira de Medicina de Família e Comunidade), which published 347 (9.8%) of these articles. About one in six articles were published in journals on family practice or primary health care. The proportion of articles published in journals in Brazil decreased during the study period from 83.8% to 58.4%. Conclusion: As in other countries, family and community physicians in Brazil usually publish in the national journal dedicated to their scholarly community, while also publishing extensively in journals from other disciplines. The increasing proportion of articles published in journals outside Brazil suggests primary care research in Brazil is increasingly of international relevance.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 216495612110233
Author(s):  
Malaika R Schwartz ◽  
Allison M Cole ◽  
Gina A Keppel ◽  
Ryan Gilles ◽  
John Holmes ◽  
...  

Background The demand for complementary and integrative health (CIH) is increasing by patients who want to receive more CIH referrals, in-clinic services, and overall care delivery. To promote CIH within the context of primary care, it is critical that providers have sufficient knowledge of CIH, access to CIH-trained providers for referral purposes, and are comfortable either providing services or co-managing patients who favor a CIH approach to their healthcare. Objective The main objective was to gather primary care providers’ perspectives across the northwestern region of the United States on their CIH familiarity and knowledge, clinic barriers and opportunities, and education and training needs. Methods We conducted an online, quantitative survey through an email invitation to all primary care providers (n = 483) at 11 primary care organizations from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). The survey questions covered talking about CIH with patients, co-managing care with CIH providers, familiarity with and training in CIH modalities, clinic barriers to CIH integration, and interest in learning more about CIH modalities. Results 218 primary care providers completed the survey (45% response rate). Familiarity with individual CIH methods ranged from 73% (chiropracty) to 8% (curanderismo). Most respondents discussed CIH with their patients (88%), and many thought that their patients could benefit from CIH (41%). The majority (89%) were willing to co-manage a patient with a CIH provider. Approximately one-third of respondents had some expertise in at least one CIH modality. Over 78% were interested in learning more about the safety and efficacy of at least one CIH modality. Conclusion Primary care providers in the Northwestern United States are generally familiar with CIH modalities, are interested in referring and co-managing care with CIH providers, and would like to have more learning opportunities to increase knowledge of CIH.


Author(s):  
Lilian Dudley

This article is part of a series on Primary Care Research in the African context and focuses on programme evaluation. Different types of programme evaluation are outlined: developmental, process, outcome and impact. Eight steps to follow in designing your programme evaluation are then described in some detail: engage stakeholders; establish what is known; describe the programme; define the evaluation and select a study design; define the indicators; planand manage data collection and analysis; make judgements and recommendations; and disseminate the findings. Other articles in the series cover related topics such as writing your research proposal, performing a literature review, conducting surveys with questionnaires, qualitative interviewing and approaches to quantitative and qualitative data analysis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document