Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study

Abstract

BackgroundThere is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms that might underlie that relationship.AimTo explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity may impact on the performance of general practices.Design & settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England.MethodIndividual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in ‘research-ready’ or ‘research-active’ general practices, and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a framework approach.ResultsParticipants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included improved knowledge and skills that could change practice work (for example, additional records searches for particular conditions); bringing in additional resources (for example, access to investigations or staff); and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (for example, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout); and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Responders identified few negative impacts.ConclusionStaff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, responders generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.