Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice

The effectiveness of any national healthcare system is highly correlated with the strength of primary care within that system. A strong research basis is essential for a firm and vibrant primary care system. General practitioners (GPs) are at the centre of most primary care systems.To inform on actions required to increase research capacity in general practice, particularly in low capacity countries, we collected information from the members of the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) and the European World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca).A qualitative design including eight semi-structured interviews and two discursive workshops were undertaken with members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe. Appreciative inquiry methods were utilized. Krueger's (1994) framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data.Research performance in general practice requires improvements in the following areas: visibility of research; knowledge acquisition; mentoring and exchange; networking and research networks; collaboration with industry, authorities and other stakeholders. Research capacity building (RCB) strategies need to be both flexible and financially supported. Leadership and collaboration are crucial.Members of the GP research community see the clear need for both national and international primary care research networks to facilitate appropriate RCB interventions. These interventions should be multifaceted, responding to needs at different levels and tailored to the context where they are to be implemented

Frameworks for evaluating health research capacity strengthening: a qualitative study

Background: Health research capacity strengthening (RCS) projects are often complex and hard to evaluate. In order to inform health RCS evaluation efforts, we aimed to describe and compare key characteristics of existing health RCS evaluation frameworks: their process of development, purpose, target users, structure, content and coverage of important evaluation issues. A secondary objective was to explore what use had been made of the ESSENCE framework, which attempts to address one such issue: harmonising the evaluation requirements of different funders. Methods: We identified and analysed health RCS evaluation frameworks published by seven funding agencies between 2004 and 2012, using a mixed methods approach involving structured qualitative analyses of documents, a stakeholder survey and consultations with key contacts in health RCS funding agencies. Results: The frameworks were intended for use predominantly by the organisations themselves, and most were oriented primarily towards funders’ internal organisational performance requirements. The frameworks made limited reference to theories that specifically concern RCS. Generic devices, such as logical frameworks, were typically used to document activities, outputs and outcomes, but with little emphasis on exploring underlying assumptions or contextual constraints. Usage of the ESSENCE framework appeared limited. Conclusions: We believe that there is scope for improving frameworks through the incorporation of more accessible information about how to do evaluation in practice; greater involvement of stakeholders, following evaluation capacity building principles; greater emphasis on explaining underlying rationales of frameworks; and structuring frameworks so that they separate generic and project-specific aspects of health RCS evaluation. The third and fourth of these improvements might assist harmonisation