Addressing the credibility gap in general practice research: better theory; more feeling; less strategy

Area of Science:

• General Practice Research
• Health Services Research

Background:

• A robust international network of general practice researchers has developed over 30 years.
• The body of literature in general practice is extensive and varied.
• Despite this growth, the medical profession exhibits significant uncertainty regarding the value and application of research findings.

Purpose of the Study:

• To explore the ambivalence within the general practice profession concerning research.
• To identify factors contributing to the low credibility of research and researchers.
• To propose a way forward by examining theoretical underpinnings and research agenda ownership.

Main Methods:

• This study is a conceptual analysis and discussion paper.
• It synthesizes existing literature and professional discourse on general practice research.
• It addresses issues of theory adequacy and research agenda ownership.

Main Results:

• There is considerable professional ambivalence about the utility and direction of general practice research.
• The credibility of research and researchers in general practice is often perceived as low.
• Key issues include the adequacy of underlying theory and the ownership of research agendas.

Conclusions:

• The perceived low credibility of general practice research needs to be addressed.
• A potential path forward involves strengthening the theoretical basis of research.
• Establishing clear ownership of research agendas is crucial for enhancing research impact and integration.