Author
Listed:
- Seng Fah Tong
- 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
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.
Suggested Citation
Seng Fah Tong & 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, 2018.
"Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0196379
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196379
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Joseph Ouma Oindo, 2021.
"Engaging in and Coping with Bribery by the Bodaboda Riders in Kisii town, Kenya,"
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(3), pages 351-357, March.
- Serlha Tawo & Sileni Gasser & Armin Gemperli & Christoph Merlo & Stefan Essig, 2019.
"General practitioners’ willingness to participate in research: A survey in central Switzerland,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-10, March.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.