Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question.

The ultimate answer to the question, “Why research in family medicine?” is to provide better care for our patients. Through research we want to improve quality of primary care by improving our understanding and practice of it. This research will inevitably be specific for family medicine as family medicine is a specific discipline. In this article we first explore what makes family medicine a specific discipline. In a second part we present a framework to grasp the various research questions that must be answered to achieve the complex and multifaceted goal of improving quality of care. Family medicine is a specific discipline for 3 reasons: it has a unique epidemiology, the context of care is important, and it has a strong link and responsibility to the community. Quality of care is a complex and multidimensional concept that raises diverse research questions. We propose to map these questions within a framework defined by the 3 dimensions of the Donabedian triangle—structure, process, and outcome—and within each of these dimensions by 5 foci—basic knowledge, diagnostic and therapeutic problem solving, practice implementation, policy context, and education. This framework may help to make the various research questions operational and to point out the gaps in our research. The questions and answers should be relevant to daily practice and comprise all domains of family medicine so that eventually most of our daily actions in practice will be underpinned with medical, contextual, and policy evidence and contribute to the improvement of the quality of care.

[1]  J. Mold,et al.  Goal-oriented medical care. , 1991, Family medicine.

[2]  J. Kleijnen,et al.  Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review , 2001, The Lancet.

[3]  José Maria Paganni,et al.  Evaluating the quality of medical care. , 1966, The Milbank Memorial Fund quarterly.

[4]  M Eccles,et al.  Why does primary care need more implementation research? , 2001, Family practice.

[5]  Wonca Europe,et al.  THE EUROPEAN DEFINITION OF GENERAL PRACTICE / FAMILY MEDICINE , 2002 .

[6]  J. Morse,et al.  Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals , 1995 .

[7]  C. van Weel,et al.  Biomedical science matters for people--so its impact should be better assessed. , 2002, Lancet.

[8]  C. Weel,et al.  The need for research in primary care , 2003, The Lancet.

[9]  Jan Heyrman,et al.  THE EUROPEAN DEFINITION OF GENERAL PRACTICE / FAMILY MEDICINE , 2002 .

[10]  Christian Gluud,et al.  Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  Liam Smeeth,et al.  Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. , 2002, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  A. Howe Is primary care research a lost cause? , 2003, The Lancet.

[13]  C. Weel General practice: a suitable place for , 1995 .

[14]  Jan De Maeseneer,et al.  Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  J. De Maeseneer,et al.  Antibiotic prescribing in acute infections of the nose or sinuses: a matter of personal habit? , 2001, Family practice.

[16]  H Roberts,et al.  Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity , 1994 .

[17]  L. Goldfrank,et al.  The ecology of medical care revisited. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  P. Owen Clinical practice and medical research: bridging the divide between the two cultures. , 1995, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[19]  J. Mold,et al.  Primary care research: revisiting its definition and rationale. , 2000, The Journal of family practice.

[20]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  Closing the gap between research and practice : an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings , 2011 .

[21]  T. Walley,et al.  Why do GPs not implement evidence-based guidelines? A descriptive study. , 2001, Family practice.

[22]  K. White Fundamental research at primary care level , 2000, The Lancet.