The development of general practice as an academic discipline in Germany - an analysis of research output between 2000 and 2010

BMC Family Practice (Impact Factor: 1.74). 06/2012; 13(1):58. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-13-58
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background
Governmental funding support is seen as a prerequisite for the growth of research in general practice. Several funding programs in the amount of € 13.2 Mio were introduced in Germany from 2002 to February 2012. We aim to provide an overview of publications reporting original data and systematic reviews from German academic family medicine published between 2000 and 2010.

Publications were identified by searching the database Scopus and screening publication lists of family medicine divisions or institutes. Papers had to report original primary research studies or systematic reviews; at least one of the authors had to be affiliated to a German academic family medicine division or institute.

794 articles were included. The number of publications increased steadily starting from 107 in the period from 2000 to 2003, to 273 from 2004 to 2007, and finally to 414 from 2008 to 2010. Less than 25% were published in English in the first period. This proportion increased to 60.6% from 2008 to 2010. Articles published in a journal without impact factor decreased from 59.8% to 31.9%. Nevertheless, even in the most recent period only 31.6% of all articles were published in a journal with an impact factor above 2. The median impact factor increased from 0 in the first period to 1.2 in the last.

The output of original research publications from academic research divisions and institutes for general practice in Germany greatly increased during the last decade. However, professionalism of German primary care research still needs to be developed.

  • Source
    SAÚDE, DESENVOLVIMENTO, CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA E INOVAÇÃO, 1 edited by ANA LUIZA d’ÁVILA VIANA, NELSON IBAÑEZ, AYLENE BOUSQUAT, 01/2012: pages 436-459; Hucitec Editora., ISBN: 978-85-64806-54-2
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In Germany, clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies in primary care are still very rare, while their usefulness has been recognised in many other countries. A network of researchers from German academic general practice has explored the reasons for this discrepancy. Methods Based on a comprehensive literature review and expert group discussions, problem analyses as well as structural and procedural prerequisites for a better implementation of clinical trials in German primary care are presented. Results In Germany, basic biomedical science and technology is more reputed than clinical or health services research. Clinical trials are funded by industry or a single national programme, which is highly competitive, specialist-dominated, exclusive of pilot studies, and usually favours innovation rather than comparative effectiveness studies. Academic general practice is still not fully implemented, and existing departments are small. Most general practitioners (GPs) work in a market-based, competitive setting of small private practices, with a high case load. They have no protected time or funding for research, and mostly no research training or experience. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training is compulsory for participation in clinical trials. The group defined three work packages to be addressed regarding clinical trials in German general practice: (1) problem analysis, and definition of (2) structural prerequisites and (3) procedural prerequisites. Structural prerequisites comprise specific support facilities for general practice-based research networks that could provide practices with a point of contact. Procedural prerequisites consist, for example, of a summary of specific relevant key measures, for example on a web platform. The platform should contain standard operating procedures (SOPs), templates, checklists and other supporting materials for researchers. Conclusion All in all, our problem analyses revealed that a substantial number of barriers contribute to the low implementation of clinical research in German general practice. Some issues are deeply rooted in Germany’s market-based healthcare and academic systems and traditions. However, new developments may facilitate change: recent developments in the German research landscape are encouraging.
    Trials 11/2012; 13(1):205. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-13-205 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose.Although in the last decades primary care research has evolved with great success, there is a growing need to prioritize the topics given the limited resources available. Therefore, we constructed a nationwide database of ongoing primary care research projects in the Netherlands, and we assessed if the distribution of research topics matched with primary care practice. We conducted a survey among the main primary care research centres in the Netherlands and gathered details of all ongoing primary care research projects. We classified the projects according to research topic, relation to professional guidelines and knowledge deficits, collaborative partners and funding source. Subsequently, we compared the frequency distribution of clinical topics of research projects to the prevalence of problems in primary care practice. We identified 296 ongoing primary care research projects from 11 research centres. Most projects were designed as randomized controlled trial (35%) or observational cohort (34%), and government funded mostly (60%). Thematically, most research projects addressed chronic diseases, mainly cardiovascular risk management (8%), depressive disorders (8%) and diabetes mellitus (7%). One-fifth of the projects was related to defined knowledge deficits in primary care guidelines. From a clinical primary care perspective, research projects on dermatological problems were significantly underrepresented (P = 0.01). This survey of ongoing projects demonstrates that primary care research has a firm basis in the Netherlands, with a strong focus on chronic disease. The fit with primary care practice can improve, and future research should address knowledge deficits in professional guidelines more.
    Family Practice 11/2013; DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmt067 · 1.84 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from