Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Research

What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study

Authors: Monica Aggarwal, Brian Hutchison, Sabrina T. Wong, Alan Katz, Steve Slade, Deirdre Snelgrove

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Research evidence to inform primary care policy and practice is essential for building high-performing primary care systems. Nevertheless, research output relating to primary care remains low worldwide. This study describes the factors associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers.

Methods

A qualitative, descriptive key informant study approach was used to conduct semi-structured interviews with twenty-three primary care researchers across Canada. Qualitative data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-three primary care researchers participated in the study. An interplay of personal (psychological characteristics, gender, race, parenthood, education, spousal occupation, and support), professional (mentorship before appointment, national collaborations, type of research, career length), institutional (leadership, culture, resources, protected time, mentorship, type), and system (funding, systematic bias, environment, international collaborations, research data infrastructure) factors were perceived to be associated with research productivity. Research institutes and mentors facilitated collaborations, and mentors and type of research enabled funding success. Jurisdictions with fewer primary care researchers had more national collaborations but fewer funding opportunities. The combination of institutional, professional, and system factors were barriers to the research productivity of female and/or racialized researchers.

Conclusions

This study illuminates the intersecting and multifaceted influences on the research productivity of primary care researchers. By exploring individual, professional, institutional, and systemic factors, we underscore the pivotal role of diverse elements in shaping RP. Understanding these intricate influencers is imperative for tailored, evidence-based interventions and policies at the level of academic institutions and funding agencies to optimize resources, promote fair evaluation metrics, and cultivate inclusive environments conducive to diverse research pursuits within the PC discipline in Canada.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Abdelhalim R, Baker GR. Building High-Performing Primary Care Systems: After a Decade of Policy Change, Is Canada “Walking the Talk?” Milbank Q. 2023;101(4):0925.
3.
Hajjar F, Saint-Lary O, Cadwallader JS, Chauvin P, Boutet A, Steinecker M, et al. Development of Primary Care Research in North America, Europe, and Australia from 1974 to 2017. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17(1):49–51.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Strange KC, Miller WC, Etz RS. The role of primary care in improving Population Health. Milbank Q. 2023;101(S1):795–840.PubMedCrossRef
5.
6.
Dania A, Nagykaldi Z, Haaranen A, Muris JW, Evans PH, Mäntyselkä P, et al. A review of 50-years of international literature on the internal environment of building practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Family Med. 2021;34(4):762–97.CrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Chauvin S, Mulsant BH, Sockalingam S, Stergiopoulos V, Taylor VH, Vigod SN. Gender Differences in Research Productivity among Academic psychiatrists in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2019;64(6):415–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Kumari B, Sahney S, Madhukar A. Factors influencing productivity of researchers: a study of select public sector R&D laboratories in India. Int J Global Bus Competitiveness. 2018;13(1):75–98.
11.
Muriithi P, Horner D, Pemberton L. Understanding factors influencing the effect of scientific collaboration on productivity in a developing country: Kenya. Proc Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2013;50(1):1–10.CrossRef
12.
Kozhakhmet S, Moldashev K, Yenikeyeva A, Nurgabdeshov A. How training and development practices contribute to research productivity: a moderated mediation model. Stud High Educ. 2022;47(2):437–49.CrossRef
13.
Muhammad K, Ghani EK, Ilias A, Ali MM, Ismail RF, Rohayati S, et al. Investigating the effects of individual and institutional factors on the research productivity of university academics: a comprehensive analysis. Nurture. 2023;17(2):93–102.CrossRef
14.
Nasser-Abu Alhija F, Majdob A, Nasser-Abu F. Ahija. Predictors of Teacher Educators’ Research Productivity. Australian J Teacher Educ. 2017;42.
15.
16.
White C, James K, Burke-Smalley L, Allen R. What makes a research star? Factors influencing the research productivity of business faculty. Int J Productivity Perform Manage. 2012;61:584–602.CrossRef
17.
Hemlin S, Gustafsson M. Research production in the arts and humanities: a questionnaire study of factors influencing research performance. Scientometrics. 1996;37(3):417–32.CrossRef
18.
Hedjazi Y, Behravan J. Study of factors influencing research productivity of agriculture faculty members in Iran. High Educ. 2011;62(5):635–47.CrossRef
19.
Bland C, Center B, Finstad D, Risbey K, Staples JA, Theoretical. Practical, predictive model of Faculty and Department Research Productivity. Acad Medicine: J Association Am Med Colleges. 2005;80:225–37.CrossRef
20.
Lee V. Faculty Research Productivity: why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? PS. Political Sci Politics. 2011;44:393–408.CrossRef
21.
Fox MF, Gender. Family characteristics, and Publication Productivity among scientists. Soc Stud Sci. 2005;35(1):131–50.CrossRef
22.
Mantikayan J, Abdulgani M. Factors affecting Faculty Research Productivity: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. JPAIR Multidisciplinary Res. 2018;31.
23.
Bland CJ, Seaquist E, Pacala JT, Center B, Finstad D. One school’s strategy to assess and improve the vitality of its faculty. Acad Med. 2002;77(5):368–76.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Martínez-Blancas A, Bender A, Zepeda V, McGuire R, Tabares O, Amarasekare P et al. Surviving racism and sexism in Academia: sharing experiences, insights, and perspectives. Bull Ecol Soc Am. 2022;104.
26.
Staniscuaski F, Kmetzsch L, Soletti RC, Reichert F, Zandonà E, Ludwig ZMC et al. Gender, race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic: from Survey to Action. Front Psychol. 2021;12.
27.
Liu M, Zhang N, Hu X, Jaiswal A, Xu J, Chen H, et al. Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from coronavirus-related literature. J Informetrics. 2022;16(2):101295.
28.
Cui R, Ding H, Zhu F. Gender inequality in Research Productivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Manuf Service Oper Manage. 2022;24(2):707–26.
29.
Bleich SN, Findling MG, Casey LS, Blendon RJ, Benson JM, SteelFisher GK, et al. Discrimination in the United States: experiences of black americans. Health Serv Res. 2019;54(Suppl 2):1399–408.
30.
Findling MG, Bleich SN, Casey LS, Blendon RJ, Benson JM, Sayde JM, et al. Discrimination in the United States: experiences of latinos. Health Serv Res. 2019;54(S2):1409–18.
31.
Jonker SS, Guzman CEV, McCully BH. Addressing structural racism within institutional bodies regulating research. J Appl Physiol. 2021;130(6):1668–71.
32.
Evans G, Cokley K. African American women and the Academy: using Career Mentoring to increase Research Productivity. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2008;2:50–7.
33.
Ju M. The impact of institutional and peer support on faculty research productivity: a comparative analysis of research vs. non-research institutions: Seton Hall University; 2010.
34.
Wanner RA, Lewis LS, Gregorio DI. Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education. 1981:238– 53.
35.
Knowlton SE, Paganoni S, Niehaus W, Verduzco-Gutierrez M, Sharma R, Iaccarino MA, et al. Measuring the impact of research using conventional and alternative metrics. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(4):331–8.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ranjan A, Kumar R, Sinha A, Nanda S, Dave KA, Collette MD, et al. Competing for impact and prestige: deciphering the alphabet soup of academic publications and faculty productivity metrics. Int J Acad Med. 2016;2(2):187.CrossRef
37.
Boudreaux ED, Higgins SE Jr, Reznik-Zellen R, Wang B, Volturo G. Scholarly productivity and impact: developing a quantifiable, norm‐based benchmarking methodology for academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(6):594–604.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77–84.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in nursing & health. 2000;23(4):334– 40.
40.
Lambert VA, Lambert CE. Qualitative descriptive research: an Acceptable Design. Pac Rim Int J Nurs Res. 2012;16(4):255–6.
41.
42.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Suri H. Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Res J. 2011;11:63–75.CrossRef
44.
Rowlands T, Waddell N, McKenna B. Are we there yet? A technique to Determine Theoretical Saturation. J Comput Inform Syst. 2015;56:40–7.
45.
46.
Marshall C, Rossman G. Designing qualitative research2011. 321 p.
47.
Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;11(4):589–97.CrossRef
48.
Clarke V, Braun V. Teaching thematic analysis: overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. Psychol. 2013;26:120–3.
49.
Braun V, Clarke V, Weate P. Using thematic analysis in sport and exercise research. Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise. London: Taylor & Francis (Routledge); 2016.
50.
Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Res Psychol. 2020;18:1–25.
51.
Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling Psychother Res. 2021;21(1):37–47.CrossRef
52.
Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant. 2022;56.
53.
Bourke B, Positionality. Reflecting on the research process. Qualitative Rep. 2014;19:1–9.
54.
Finlay L. Five lenses for the reflexive interviewer. 2012. p. 317– 32.
55.
Wiltshier F. Researching With NVivo. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2011;12.
56.
Flicker S, Nixon SA. The DEPICT model for participatory qualitative health promotion research analysis piloted in Canada, Zambia and South Africa. Health Promot Int. 2015;30(3):616–24.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Krefting L. Rigor in qualitative research: the assessment of trustworthiness. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(3):214–22.PubMedCrossRef
58.
De Wet J, Erasmus Z. Towards rigour in qualitative analysis. Qualitative Res J. 2005;5(1):27–40.
59.
60.
Dusdal J, Powell JJW, Baker DP, Fu YC, Shamekhi Y, Stock M. University vs. Research Institute? The dual pillars of German Science Production, 1950–2010. Minerva. 2020;58(3):319–42.CrossRef
61.
Powell JJW, Dusdal J. Science Production in Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg: comparing the Contributions of Research Universities and institutes to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Health. Minerva. 2017;55(4):413–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
Pourciau T, editor. Leadership for scholarly excellence: a qualitative examination of department chair facilitation methods to promote research productivity in pre-tenure biological sciences faculty2006.
63.
Davies S, Putnam H, Ainsworth T, Baum J, Bove C, Crosby S et al. Shifting our value system beyond citations for a more equitable future2021.
64.
Ocampo L, Aro JL, Evangelista SS, Maturan F, Yamagishi K, Mamhot D, et al. Research Productivity for augmenting the Innovation potential of higher Education institutions: an Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach and MICMAC Analysis. J Open Innovation: Technol Market Complex. 2022;8(3):148.CrossRef
65.
Nguyen Q, Klopper C. The influences of Research Environment within a University on Research Productivity of Academic Staff– A Case Study in a research-oriented University in Vietnam. Int J Arts Sci. 2014;7:189–97.
66.
Frantz JM, George A, Hunter-Husselmann M, Kapenda H, Yassin Z. Institutional policies, practices and initiatives Impacting Research Productivity: the strengthening of collaboration, Leadership and Professionalism in Research Management in the southern African Development Community (SADC) and European Union (EU) higher Education Institutions (StoRM). J Res Adm. 2022;53(2):40–59.
67.
Brown J, Tucker J. Expanding Library Support of Faculty Research: Exploring Readiness. portal: Libraries and the Academy. 2013;13:257– 71.
68.
Okon AE, Owan VJ, Owan MV. Mentorship practices and Research Productivity among Early-Career Educational psychologists in universities. Educational Process Int J. 2022;11(1):105–26.CrossRef
69.
Scutelnicu Todoran G. The contribution of formal and informal mentorship to faculty productivity: views of faculty in public affairs programs. J Public Affairs Educ. 2023:1–17.
70.
71.
Morrison-Beedy D, Aronowitz T, Dyne J, Mkandawire L. Mentoring students and junior faculty in faculty research: a win-win scenario. J Prof Nurs. 2001;17(6):291–6.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Nocco MA, McGill BM, MacKenzie CM, Tonietto RK, Dudney J, Bletz MC, et al. Mentorship, equity, and research productivity: lessons from a pandemic. Biol Conserv. 2021;255:108966.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
73.
Lechuga VM. Faculty-graduate student mentoring relationships: mentors’ perceived roles and responsibilities. High Educ. 2011;62(6):757–71.CrossRef
74.
Koelsch LE. Reconceptualizing the member check interview. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2013;12(1):168–79.ADSCrossRef
Metadata
Title
What factors are associated with the research productivity of primary care researchers in Canada? A qualitative study
Authors
Monica Aggarwal
Brian Hutchison
Sabrina T. Wong
Alan Katz
Steve Slade
Deirdre Snelgrove
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10644-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Health Services Research 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

People living with HIV’s perspectives of acceptability of fee for home delivery of ART: a qualitative study

Research

Social network analysis for medical narcotics in South Korea: focusing on patients and healthcare organizations

Research

Changes in intention to use an interprofessional approach to decision-making following training: a cluster before-and-after study

Research

Hospital length of stay and readmission after elective surgery: a comparison of current and former smokers with non-smokers

Research

Patient level barriers to accessing TB care services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Uganda, a mixed methods study

Research

Post-hospitalization remote monitoring for patients with heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an accountable care organization