Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners

A grounded theory study

Tong Seng Fah, Chirk Jenn Ng, Verna Kar Mun Lee, Ping Yein Lee, Irmi Zarina Ismail, Ee Ming Khoo, Noor Azizah Tahir, Iliza Idris, Mastura Ismail, Adina Abdullah

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs’ decision-making process to participate in research. Methods We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels. Results The GPs’ decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs’ decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs’ participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs’ confidence in taking part in future research. Conclusions The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs’ social environments and research support.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0196379
JournalPLoS One
Volume13
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2018

Fingerprint

general practitioners
General Practitioners
decision making
Decision Making
Decision making
Research
Social Environment
social environment
research support
Grounded Theory
interviews
Primary Health Care
Interviews
Organizational Culture
Professional Competence
Sampling
focus groups
Aptitude

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)

Cite this

Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners : A grounded theory study. / Seng Fah, Tong; Ng, Chirk Jenn; Lee, Verna Kar Mun; Lee, Ping Yein; Ismail, Irmi Zarina; Khoo, Ee Ming; Tahir, Noor Azizah; Idris, Iliza; Ismail, Mastura; Abdullah, Adina.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 13, No. 4, e0196379, 01.04.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seng Fah, T, Ng, CJ, Lee, VKM, Lee, PY, Ismail, IZ, Khoo, EM, Tahir, NA, Idris, I, Ismail, M & Abdullah, A 2018, 'Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study', PLoS One, vol. 13, no. 4, e0196379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196379
Seng Fah, Tong ; Ng, Chirk Jenn ; Lee, Verna Kar Mun ; Lee, Ping Yein ; Ismail, Irmi Zarina ; Khoo, Ee Ming ; Tahir, Noor Azizah ; Idris, Iliza ; Ismail, Mastura ; Abdullah, Adina. / Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners : A grounded theory study. In: PLoS One. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 4.
@article{ef8bdb55bec34e4eabc66db8d37635cb,
title = "Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study",
abstract = "Introduction The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs’ decision-making process to participate in research. Methods We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels. Results The GPs’ decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs’ decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs’ participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs’ confidence in taking part in future research. Conclusions The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs’ social environments and research support.",
author = "{Seng Fah}, Tong and Ng, {Chirk Jenn} and Lee, {Verna Kar Mun} and Lee, {Ping Yein} and Ismail, {Irmi Zarina} and Khoo, {Ee Ming} and Tahir, {Noor Azizah} and Iliza Idris and Mastura Ismail and Adina Abdullah",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0196379",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners

T2 - A grounded theory study

AU - Seng Fah, Tong

AU - Ng, Chirk Jenn

AU - Lee, Verna Kar Mun

AU - Lee, Ping Yein

AU - Ismail, Irmi Zarina

AU - Khoo, Ee Ming

AU - Tahir, Noor Azizah

AU - Idris, Iliza

AU - Ismail, Mastura

AU - Abdullah, Adina

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Introduction The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs’ decision-making process to participate in research. Methods We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels. Results The GPs’ decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs’ decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs’ participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs’ confidence in taking part in future research. Conclusions The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs’ social environments and research support.

AB - Introduction The participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs’ decision-making process to participate in research. Methods We used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels. Results The GPs’ decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs’ decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs’ participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs’ confidence in taking part in future research. Conclusions The key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs’ social environments and research support.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045952257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045952257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0196379

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0196379

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 4

M1 - e0196379

ER -