↓ Skip to main content

Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Decision making process and factors contributing to research participation among general practitioners: A grounded theory study
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0196379
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 7 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 12%
Psychology 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2022.
All research outputs
#15,316,177
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,601
of 194,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,093
of 325,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,273
of 3,439 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,388 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,716 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,439 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.