Scholarlink

Background <p>To expand research in general practice, the development of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) has increased considerably in Germany over the last years. In order to implement these structures sustainably and effectively in primary care, it is important to understand the perspective of the GP teams on their role and their experiences in conducting clinical studies within PBRNs. The aim of this analysis was to examine the experiences of GP teams after the implementation and conduct of clinical studies within in the Bavarian Practice-Based Research Network (BayFoNet) retrospectively to derive insights for a sustainable implementation of a German PBRN in primary care.</p> Methods <p>We conducted semi-structured interviews based on the theoretical concept of the “Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research” with practices, which were already members of BayFoNet. The verbatim transcripts were analysed based on Kuckartz's qualitative content analysis.</p> Results <p>Interviews were conducted with 16 GPs and one medical assistant (MA). As main drivers for a sustainable implementation of a primary care based PBRNs could be identified aspects of intervention characteristics (study design and a research question), the inner setting (teamwork), individual aspects (professional training) as well as facilitators on the level of the outer setting (contribution to evidence and quality). As barriers we identified a reduced interest of the study participants early processes (preparatory steps and participation) as well as missed networking options among peers (inner setting).</p> Discussion <p>The perspective of the GP teams within our process evaluation confirmed some already known aspects, like the importance of professional development of the practice staff, contribution to evidence, quality and strength in general practice and networking needs. As increasing research-specific experience with clinical research sharpened their needs and requirements, desired processes of participation and the role of non-physician staff in PBRNs have to be further elaborated.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Sustainable implementation of practice-based research networks in primary care: a qualitative process evaluation of the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月8日

查看全文
  • Linda Sanftenberg,
  • Ulrike Stark-Felbinger,
  • Stefanie Eck,
  • Antonius Schneider,
  • Peter Konstantin Kurotschka,
  • Ildikó Gágyor,
  • Stefanie Stark,
  • Thomas Kühlein,
  • Fabian Walter,
  • Marco Roos,
  • Tobias Dreischulte,
  • Jochen Gensichen,
  • Andrea Baumgärtel,
  • Kathrin Lasher,
  • Maike Ermster,
  • Alexander Hapfelmeier,
  • Susann Hueber,
  • Merle Klanke,
  • Christian Kretzschmann,
  • Klaus Linde,
  • Klara Lorenz,
  • Til Uebel,
  • Clara Teusen

摘要

Background

To expand research in general practice, the development of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) has increased considerably in Germany over the last years. In order to implement these structures sustainably and effectively in primary care, it is important to understand the perspective of the GP teams on their role and their experiences in conducting clinical studies within PBRNs. The aim of this analysis was to examine the experiences of GP teams after the implementation and conduct of clinical studies within in the Bavarian Practice-Based Research Network (BayFoNet) retrospectively to derive insights for a sustainable implementation of a German PBRN in primary care.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews based on the theoretical concept of the “Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research” with practices, which were already members of BayFoNet. The verbatim transcripts were analysed based on Kuckartz's qualitative content analysis.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 16 GPs and one medical assistant (MA). As main drivers for a sustainable implementation of a primary care based PBRNs could be identified aspects of intervention characteristics (study design and a research question), the inner setting (teamwork), individual aspects (professional training) as well as facilitators on the level of the outer setting (contribution to evidence and quality). As barriers we identified a reduced interest of the study participants early processes (preparatory steps and participation) as well as missed networking options among peers (inner setting).

Discussion

The perspective of the GP teams within our process evaluation confirmed some already known aspects, like the importance of professional development of the practice staff, contribution to evidence, quality and strength in general practice and networking needs. As increasing research-specific experience with clinical research sharpened their needs and requirements, desired processes of participation and the role of non-physician staff in PBRNs have to be further elaborated.