You are here

Article Text

Article menu
General practice / Family practice
Original research
Survey to identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland during and following the COVID-19 pandemic
  1. Gill Hubbard1,
  2. Fiona Grist1,
  3. Lindsey Margaret Pope2,
  4. Scott Cunningham3,
  5. Margaret Maxwell4,
  6. Marion Bennie5,
  7. Bruce Guthrie6,
  8. Stewart W Mercer7
  1. 1 Nursing and Midwifery, University of the Highlands and Islands, Inverness, UK
  2. 2 School of Medicine, Dentistry & Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  3. 3 School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
  4. 4 Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK
  5. 5 Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
  6. 6 College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, Edinburgh, UK
  7. 7 Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Gill Hubbard; gill.hubbard{at}uhi.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives To identify research priorities for primary care in Scotland following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design Modified James Lind Alliance methodology; respondents completed an online survey to make research suggestions and rank research themes in order of priority.

Setting Scotland primary care.

Participants Healthcare professionals in primary care in Scotland and members of primary care patient and public involvement groups. 512 respondents provided research suggestions; 8% (n=40) did not work in health or social care; of those who did work, 68.8% worked in primary care, 16.3% community care, 11.7% secondary care, 4.5% third sector, 4.2% university (respondents could select multiple options). Of those respondents who identified as healthcare professionals, 33% were in nursing and midwifery professions, 25% were in allied health professions (of whom 45% were occupational therapists and 35% were physiotherapists), 20% were in the medical profession and 10% were in the pharmacy profession.

Main outcomes Suggestions for research for primary care made by respondents were categorised into themes and subthemes by researchers and ranked in order of priority by respondents.

Results There were 1274 research suggestions which were categorised under 12 themes and 30 subthemes. The following five themes received the most suggestions for research: disease and illness (n=461 suggestions), access (n=202), workforce (n=164), multidisciplinary team (MDT; n=143) and integration (n=108). One hundred and three (20%) respondents to the survey participated in ranking the list of 12 themes in order of research priority. The five most highly ranked research priorities were disease and illness, health inequalities, access, workforce and MDTs. The disease and illness theme had the greatest number of suggestions for research and was scored the most highly in the ranking exercise. The subtheme ranked as the most important research priority in the disease and illness theme was ‘mental health’.

Conclusions The themes and subthemes identified in this study should inform research funders so that the direction of primary healthcare is informed by evidence.

  • primary care
  • qualitative research
  • health policy

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Study documents are available in online supplemental files. Anonymised data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056817

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Study documents are available in online supplemental files. Anonymised data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Matron2012, @LindseyMPope

    • Contributors GH is the author acting as guarantor. GH, LMP, SC, MM, MB, BG and SWM conceived and designed the study. FG administered the survey. GH, FG and SWM conducted the analysis and interpreted the data. GH, LMP, SC, MM, BG, SWM, FG and MB drafted the manuscript and revised it critically for important intellectual content, and gave final approval of the version of the manuscript to be published. GH, LMP, SC, MM, BG, SWM, FG and MB agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

    • Funding The Scottish School of Primary Care which led this study does receive a grant from the Scottish Government.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.