Dataset Information

Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the volume and quality of original research in primary care published by researchers from primary care in the United Kingdom against five countries with well established academic primary care.

Design

Bibliometric analysis.

Setting

United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands. Studies reviewed Research publications relevant to comprehensive primary care and authored by researchers from primary care, recorded in Medline and Embase, with publication dates 2001-7 inclusive.

Main outcome measures

Volume of published activity of generalist primary care researchers and the quality of the research output by those publishing the most using citation metrics: numbers of cited papers, proportion of cited papers, and mean citation scores.

Results

82,169 papers published between 2001 and 2007 in the six countries were classified as research on primary care. In a 15% pragmatic random sample of these records, 40% of research on primary care from the United Kingdom and 46% from the Netherlands was authored by researchers employed in a primary care setting or employed in academic departments of primary care. The 141 researchers with the highest volume of publications reporting research findings published between 2001 and 2007 (inclusive) authored or part authored 8.3% of the total sample of papers. For authors with the highest proportion of publications cited at least five times, the best performers came from the United States (n=5), United Kingdom (n=4), and the Netherlands (n=2). In the top 10 of authors with the highest proportions of publications achieving 20 or more citations, six were from the United Kingdom and four from the United States. The mean Hirsch index (measure of a researcher's productivity and impact of the published work) was 14 for the Netherlands, 13 for the United Kingdom, 12 for the United States, 7 for Canada, 4 for Australia, and 3 for Germany.

Conclusion

This international comparison of the volume and citation rates of papers by researchers from primary care consistently placed UK researchers among the best performers internationally.

SUBMITTER: Glanville J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3050436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:People living in rural and remote communities commonly experience significant health disadvantages. Geographical barriers and reduced specialist and generalist services impact access to care when compared with metropolitan context. Innovative models of care have been developed for people living with chronic diseases in rural areas with the goal of overcoming these inequities. The aim of this paper was to describe the characteristics and outcomes of studies investigating innovative models of care for people living with chronic disease in rural areas of developed countries where a metropolitan comparator was included. METHODS:An integrative systematic review was undertaken. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method was used to understand the empirical and theoretical data on clinical outcomes for people living with chronic disease in rural compared with metropolitan contexts and their models of care in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. RESULTS:Literature searching revealed 620 articles published in English between 1st January 2000 and 31st March 2019. One hundred sixty were included in the review including 68 from the United States, 59 from Australia and New Zealand (5), 21 from Canada and 11 from the United Kingdom and Ireland. 53% (84) focused on cardiovascular disease; 27% (43) diabetes mellitus; 8% (12) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and 13% (27) chronic kidney disease. Mortality was only reported in 10% (16) of studies and only 18% (29) reported data on Indigenous populations. CONCLUSIONS:This integrated review reveals that the published literature on common chronic health issues pertaining to rural and remote populations is largely descriptive. Only a small number of publications focus on mortality and comparative health outcomes from health care models in both urban and non-urban populations. Innovative service models and telehealth are together well represented in the published literature but data on health outcomes is relatively sparse. There is significant scope for further directly comparative studies detailing the effect of service delivery models on the health outcomes of urban and rural populations. We believe that such data would further knowledge in this field and help to break the deadly synergy between increased rurality and poorer outcomes for people with chronic disease.

Project description:AIMS:To estimate predictors of time to smoking relapse and test if prediction varied by quit duration. DESIGN:Longitudinal cohort data from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country survey with annual follow up collected between 2002 and 2015. SETTING:Canada, United States, United Kingdom and Australia. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 9171 eligible adult smokers who had made at least one quit attempt during the study period. MEASUREMENTS:Time to relapse was the main outcome. Predictor variables included pre-quit baseline measures of nicotine dependence, smoking and quitting-related motivations, quitting capacity and social influence, and also two post-quit measures, use of stop-smoking medications and quit duration (1-7 days, 8-14 days, 15-31 days, 1-3 months, 3-6 months, 6-12 months, 1-2 years and 2+ years), along with socio-demographics. FINDINGS:All factors were predictive of relapse within the first 6 months of quitting but only wanting to quit, quit intentions and number of friends who smoke were still predictive of relapse in the 6-12-month period of quitting [hazard ratios (HR) = 1.20, P < 0.05; 1.13, P < 0.05; and 1.21, P < 0.001, respectively]. Number of friends smoking was the only remaining predictor of relapse in the 1-2 years quit period (HR = 1.19, P = 0.001) with none predictive beyond the 2-year quit period. Use of stop-smoking medications during quit attempts was related negatively to relapse during the first 2 weeks of quitting (HR = 0.71-0.84), but related positively to relapse in the 1-6-month quit period (HR = 1.29-1.54). Predictive effects of all factors showed significant interaction with quit duration except for perceiving smoking as an important part of life, prematurely stubbing out a cigarette and wanting to quit. CONCLUSIONS:Among adult smokers in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Australia, factors associated with smoking relapse differ between the early and later stages of a quit attempt, suggesting that the determinants of relapse change as a function of abstinence duration.