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

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study. | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study. Cassandra Kenning, Juliet A Usher-Smith, James Jamison, Jennifer Jones, and 5 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Apr, 2024 Read the published version in BJGP Open → Version 3 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Abstract Background There 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 which might underlie that relationship. Aim To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. Design & Setting Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. Method Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in ‘research ready’ or ‘research active’ general practices and with 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach. Results Participants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included research changing practice work (e.g. additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (e.g. access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (e.g. 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). Respondents identified few negative impacts. Conclusions Staff 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, respondents 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. General Practice primary care research activity general practice qualitative Figures Figure 1 Introduction Although the benefits of research are traditionally thought to occur through its implementation into practice, 1 there is increasing evidence that engaging in research activity itself is directly associated with better performance. 2–7 For example, hospitals with high levels of cancer research show better outcomes among their patient populations with cancer and not participating in research. 3 Most of this evidence is from secondary care, but there is a developing literature from general practice also suggesting associations between research activity in a practice and improved performance by that practice on a range of measures. 8–12 If such a relationship exists, an important question concerns the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship, as an understanding of mechanisms is necessary if the relationship is to be strengthened and supported. 13 A published review identified five potential mechanisms linking research activity and outcomes. 9 Mechanisms included ‘absorptive capacity’, where research activity leads to changes in the ability of organisations to use information effectively, and specific ‘improvements in care processes’ through research (such as greater monitoring of research patients). Other potential pathways included using research to identify problems in organisational processes, or changes arising through greater links between organisations through the research process (such as between practice and academic teams or research network staff). The review also distinguished ‘intentional’ impacts of research activity from those which reflected an indirect ‘spillover’ 14 or ‘ripple’ effect. 15 Additionally, there are impacts which were specific to particular research studies (i.e. a trial in a single clinical condition raising quality of care in that condition) to impacts which are not restricted to that research area. This initial categorisation of mechanisms drew on a literature dominated by hospital studies and reflected a range of international health care systems. The authors highlighted the need ‘to build understanding of mechanisms, and to explore potentially negative impacts of research engagement alongside benefits’. Such exploration is particularly needed in general practice, where there is a limited literature available. 16 General practices are smaller organisations, serving local, diverse patient populations, with potentially different activity outcomes compared with hospitals. Research activity in general practice is varied in scope, ranging from large trials to qualitative studies. It includes interventional and observational research, primary and secondary data (i.e. research databases such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink); and publicly funded and commercial research. Research activity also varies by amount (e.g. numbers of studies and patients), duration and complexity; the scale of clinician, practice team and patient involvement, and the level of support from industry, academic and research network partners. Finally, research might be more or less focussed on questions related to routine general practice clinical work, as only a minority of studies may derive directly from the experiences and needs of general practice staff and their patients. In this study, conducted in collaboration with a large and cross-England Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, we aim to explore the views of general practice staff and wider stakeholders on the mechanisms by which engaging in research might impact on practice performance. Methods Sampling Twenty general practices were sampled for variation based on publicly available data on their size, location, patient demographics and quality of care, combined with data on research activity and outcomes from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and contextual information gathered through liaison with local Clinical Research Network staff. Based on discussions with PPI contributors, we included practices that had recently been through a process of becoming ‘research active’ through their Local Clinical Research Network (LCRN) and those which were considered highly ‘research active’. To become ‘research active’, practices go through a process of registering with the LCRN and completing the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training prior to starting any research activity. ‘Non-research active’ practices had not engaged with their LCRN or expressed interest in becoming research active. We found year-on-year research activity very variable, with some practices increasing activity and some decreasing at the time of interview. Recruitment An information sheet was distributed through local networks and direct mailings to practices. Clinical and non-clinical staff in the practice who had a role or held an interest in research were informed about the study. We also recruited stakeholders from agencies involved with research in general practice, such as research networks and local primary care organisations, based on recommendations from practice staff. For ethical approval, we set a limit of 100 participants, although this was designed to be flexible in case some interviews were done with multiple participants. NHS ethics approval was granted by South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/SC/0251) on 13/08/21. Data collection Data were collected via semi-structured interviews either in person or remotely (Teams/Zoom), lasting between 30–60 minutes, between 02/12/2021 and 28/09/2022 by three local researchers CK (F) (University of Manchester), JJones (F) (University College London) and JJamison (M) (University of Cambridge). All interviews were conducted individually. Written or verbal consent was sought at interview. We recorded age, sex, ethnicity, as well as current employment, role, and job satisfaction and each participant was given an identification code. Interview schedules were broad, including experiences of research, characteristics of an ‘effective’ research practice, and the management of overlap between clinical and research activity, although the analysis presented here is focussed on staff perceptions of mechanisms linking research activity and outcomes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed professionally, and imported into NVivo 12 for analysis. Field notes were also collected to better understand practice organisation, culture and their wider context. Analysis Framework analysis 17 was used with the support of NVivo v.12, (QRS International). All researchers went through a process of familiarisation with the first four interviews. Each transcript was carefully read, and a code applied to describe or interpret passages. This stage of open coding was completed independently by the three researchers. A coding frame was then developed by consensus. The working analytical framework was then applied independently by the researchers to transcripts of the interviews they conducted. Framework matrices were generated through NVivo. The research team met regularly in ‘data clinics’ to discuss emerging findings and update the interview schedules as needed. Once coding was complete the separate NVivo files in London and Cambridge were sent to Manchester for further analysis and the development of themes across the dataset. Two PPI events were held to explore their views on the emergent themes and incorporate their feedback. Results In total 62 interviews were completed (Tables 1 and 2 ). Around two thirds of practice staff participants were female, ages ranged between 22–56 years of age, 40% worked fulltime at the practice and the majority reported high levels of job satisfaction. Table 1 Interview participants by role Practice staff 41 GP 17 GP Trainee 3 Nurse 8 Practice manager 5 Trials Co-ordinator 3 Administrator 3 Pharmacist 2 Stakeholders 21 Primary care network 4 Clinical Commissioning Group* 4 NIHR Clinical Research Network 8 Other 5 *Now Integrated Care Systems Table 2 General practice staff characteristics: Variable Staff (n = 41) Female (%) 28 (68%) Age years, n (%) 21–30 4 ( 10 ) 31–40 17 (41) 41–50 12 (29) 51–60 7 ( 17 ) White British (%) 27 (66%) Years in role, n (%) <5 18 (44) 6–15 12 (29) 15+ 9 ( 22 ) Full Time, n (%) 17 (41) Job satisfaction score (1–7 scale), n (%) High satisfaction ( 5 – 7 ) 34 (85) Low satisfaction ( 1 – 4 ) 6 ( 15 ) Mechanisms linking research activity and general practice performance We extracted the themes relating to mechanisms, which we divided into ‘direct’ mechanisms (where there was a clear link between the mechanism and general practice performance) and ‘indirect’ mechanisms (where the link was mediated through broader changes). The core themes are presented in Fig. 1 and then further expanded in the text. [Figure 1 ] Direct effects on care - additional resources One of the main benefits of research activity was the access to extra resources, including extra income that could be reinvested into the practice: And then secondly we also try to use research as a way to boost our revenue a little bit, so we do try to have a nice mix between commercial studies and ones that benefit the patients, obviously the ones that can help generate some revenue for us is always good, particularly ones where we can afford to fund more staff to get involved with the research projects. Because we want to keep growing and I think the way we see doing that is by creating a big enough revenue stream that we can almost have a research team embedded in the practice” (M03S04- Practice Manager) Some studies were seen as beneficial because they provided access to equipment such as scanners, centrifuges, freezers or home monitoring devices. Not all of the benefits described were clinical. Staff and stakeholders described the value of time for patients, with increased appointment times for recruitment and access to staff (such as research nurses) giving patients someone else with time to attend to them, again relieving pressure on practices. “a lot of our patients, they enjoy…we don’t have the time restraints that you would have with general practice. So, we can see a patient for up to an hour, whereas in general practice, maybe you are limited to a sort of seven-minute time slot, or a ten-minute time slot. And they also get, almost like a backdoor into the surgery.” (CS407- Clinical Trials Manager) Direct effects on care - Improved knowledge and skills Taking part in research was seen by some practitioners as a way of keeping up to date with innovations in health and care, including awareness of new treatments. Trials were seen as a way of potentially ‘upskilling’ the practice team by providing extra learning about new procedures. For those that were involved in the set-up of studies, reading study protocols could provide an update on current evidence for particular conditions. “Well, I think every time we have a new research project, and we’re all talking about them and, especially with my team, there’s new syndromes that they never even knew existed, or new words or new ways of seeing people or new thought process, of how can we help with this in a different way? So, for example, the inflammation markers was an interesting one, so we were all talking about that. Oh my goodness, because we’ve got people who we know, who suffer from depression, but there might be an inflammatory cause behind it. So yes, it creates conversation and interest, yes”. (CS508- Care Co-ordinator) Direct effects on care - Improved systems General practice staff are often involved in the identification of potentially eligible research participants. Respondents noted that the processes of running searches and identifying eligible patients gave them the opportunity to maximise accuracy and consistency of coding, helping to improve care through maintenance of systems for identification and follow-up of patients. This had the further potential for improving assessment of practice performance in the Quality and Outcomes pay for performance scheme, and the external ratings of practices by the independent regulator (the Care Quality Commission): “And sometimes it can be, from our point of view, being able to flag up and pick up patients a lot better after sometimes the research team have done searches on the practice numbers and recognise that actually there are these patients that haven’t been coded, for example.” (MSH05- GP partner and Research Lead for PCN) Direct effects on care - Better care for patients Some practitioners thought that taking part in research could give them access to more modern and evidenced-based services, such as increased access to specialist services (e.g. mental health) or ‘extra’ tests for their patients, facilitating access for patients and helping relieve burden on practice resources. “So usually one of the first things we look at is benefit for the patients, so we look at opportunities that patients might not have access to elsewhere. We’re from quite a deprived area and there’s obviously quite a lot of disparity in healthcare of quite poor outcomes, so we tend to look for studies that have good outcomes for patients first of all (M03S04- Practice Manager) Another impact on patient care raised was that screening patients for study participation might lead to reviews of specific patient groups and picking up on clinical issues that may have otherwise been missed or detected later. Whilst this potentially could lead to increased workload for practitioners, practices perceived this as a potential benefit for patients. For example, studies around Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) where patients were told that they have CKD following a search of practice records, reportedly generated additional work in terms of patient queries and appointments to explain the diagnosis to patients who were not aware they had it. However, this ‘extra’ work was recognised as being in line with best practice: “I think although in that case it was a little bit more work, actually it highlighted something that we should have been doing anyway. He should have known that he had kidney disease and someone should have had that conversation. I expect there will be a few more bits like that that will probably bring us in to line with best practice as well. So it might be a little bit more work but I think it is all in the right direction. It has not deviated from what we are doing in terms of patient care on a day to day basis and it fits in with managing his CKD.” (M04S07- GP, salaried) Direct effects on care - Improved relationships with patients In research-active practices, some staff reported that patients may view staff as more knowledgeable, taking more notice of advice they give. Some practitioners reported that engaging a patient in research gave them the opportunity to build their relationship and increase trust. Other members of practice staff also saw these benefits, reporting more positive feedback from patients involved in research: “I think like a lot of other practices, we struggle with some negative feedback at times with how hard it is to meet demand and everyone wanting appointments and everything the same day or exactly when they want, so you can sometimes get in a bit of a negative environment with that, but this as a separate arm, the patients have all been fantastic when they’ve been on these studies. So I think those ones that have been involved so far have seen a massive positive benefit and we’ve noticed the positive feedback which is something we don’t always get.” (M03S04- Practice Manager) Indirect effects on performance – Improved practice image Although respondents reported that improved relationships with patients could result from their active participation in research, others spoke of the wider impact where being known for taking part in research had a positive effect on the practice reputation, with these practices being thought of as more ‘progressive’ and ‘innovative’ compared to others. Stakeholders involved in research outside the specific practices also suggested that research activity was indicative of a well-run practice that must be doing the everyday clinical work effectively to be able to take on additional tasks. Indirect effects on performance – Job satisfaction One of the most significant benefits reported by staff active in research was the positive impact on their job satisfaction. In a system under pressure, the variety offered by research to their daily routine was seen as essential in helping maintain a good working environment. Particularly, GPs reported that research activity complemented their clinical roles, offered variety, revitalised them during their clinics and therefore potentially reduced burnout. “Other reasons, so from a selfish point of view, it just varies the week for me. I think when you do slightly different things it keeps you fresh mentally, does keep you going. And if you do…I think if…if you do the same thing again, and again, especially in GP, you can burn out quite quickly.” (M03S05- GP partner) Other factors raised included improved self-esteem, taking pride in research work and making a contribution to national and global health. A further theme from some of the practice staff interviews was improved team working due to delivering research, in particular across practices when research involved activity across a wider primary care network: I think so, and I think the other thing about general practice often in this job is, you work in silo, so when you’re doing research studies it actually…it’s an opportunity to work in very small groups with other people and deliver something where you’re all working on the same project as others. So, it’s nice having these little mini projects to work on, gives a focus for the group, and actually helps engagement within teams as well. (L01S01- GP partner) Indirect effects on performance – Staff recruitment Research activity of general practices was not always explicit to all of those respondents in the practice, and indeed not always visible outside of the practice. However, some interviewees did report that it could influence recruitment and that they thought this would increasingly become a ‘selling point’ in the future. “Yes, I think it’s something that’s advertised, you know, when we’re recruiting for staff. It’s something that interested me in coming back to the practice so I’ve spoken to other people who have been thinking about applying for jobs here and it is something that people are interested in, so yes. …I don’t know about the wider staff in general. For me, it makes me more inclined to stay here because, you know, it’s something that not a lot of GP practices do. But yes, I don’t know about everybody else.” (CS311- GP, salaried) There were also comments on the positive effects being a research active practice might have on the type of staff attracted to posts. For example, people identified as ‘forward thinking staff’ and those who are progressive or keen to learn by offering expanded roles or portfolio careers. Discussion Summary Among a range of staff in practices demonstrating a range of research activity, multiple potential impacts of research activity on practice performance were identified. Of those discussed, the impacts on their working lives were most salient. Strengths and limitations Our recruitment procedures ensured a reasonable level of geographical diversity and we were able to use a range of data to sample according to levels of research activity. Nevertheless, although we achieved good variation in some characteristics, it is likely that volunteers for the study would have represented more research active practices (by design) and those likely to have had a more positive experience of research activity, and who may have been more willing to entertain the idea that such research improved practice performance. Although it is possible that these impacts would motivate future research activity, our focus was not on why practices engaged in research, but the wider impacts they reported when they did. We interviewed wider stakeholders as we felt that such staff would have a complementary perspective on the benefits of research across a range of practices compared to practice staff working within a single practice. It should be noted that research activity is integrated into care quality inspections in hospital settings, but not primary care. Framework analysis allows a systematic and flexible approach to coding qualitative data. Using a framework approach ensured consistency in coding across the three sites (Manchester, London and Cambridge) and allowed us to explore patterns and differences. Regular meetings and discussion of codes resulted in changes to the framework and interview schedules to focus on areas of interest that arose in particular interviews. We did not take an explicit realist approach although further analyses could explore the mechanisms we outline in this paper and the contexts which may make them more or less important, which could include characteristics of staff, the research activity undertaken, the wider practice population or context (such as region or levels of deprivation). This research was conducted end of 2021 to mid-2022, after most COVID restrictions had been lifted, although the impacts were still evident. Many of the practices still limited waiting in patient areas, were using remote consultations and reported reduced capacity for ‘extras’ such as research activity, or a focus on COVID-specific research. 18 Comparison with existing literature As noted previously, the categorisation of mechanisms developed by a previous review 9 was developed from a broader literature. We mapped our data to those categories and found some similarities, including some evidence of increases in ‘absorptive capacity’ and ‘improvements in care processes’. The former saw impacts such as additional resources as a result of research, reinvestment of research income, training, and updated knowledge of treatment options. Improvements in care processes included access to care, such as a treatment patients would not usually be able to access, which is a fairly common finding in patients, 19 increased monitoring through trial follow-up visits and extended appointments. There was less reporting of the other mechanisms. Some respondents reported impacts related to the mechanism ‘organisational mechanisms within health care system’, such as research processes identifying issues (such as poor coding). However, this was relatively uncommon. Formal collaborative linkages driven by research were also uncommon (beyond the support function of research network staff), although some practices reported starting to look at sharing research resources and participation across practices as part of the primary care network, 20 21 rather than as individual organisations. This could provide a platform for wider impact if benefits were more widely shared. Formal ‘action and participatory research’ is less common in primary care and thus it is unsurprising that this was rarely reported. More generally, much of the research reported here represented general practice teams supporting ‘external’ research activity through recruitment and consenting of patients, rather than research initiated by practice teams, or reflecting a closer collaboration and partnership between research and practitioner communities. 22 It is possible that these closer collaborations and participation are a much more impactful platform for change compared to the more traditional research which dominated most of the activity reported here. The core mechanism we did identify was research activity affecting the job satisfaction of those members of staff who participate, where the break from routine activity, change of pace and sense of achievement seemed to be salient for many staff. This is an interesting counterpoint to concerns that research activity is blocked by system pressures. 23 It is not known whether this reflects the particular pressures on the general practice workforce, 24 although such impacts have been identified in other professional groups outside medicine. 25 It is also not clear if these impacts are specific to research or could be replicated by any alternative activity, such as teaching or quality improvement work. 26 Negative impacts on practice performance were rarely raised, although the levels of research activity in many practices was modest and issues of time and opportunity costs would have been less apparent. Implications for research/practice The conclusion of a comprehensive review looking at the link between research activity and outcomes highlighted the need ‘to build understanding of mechanisms, and to explore potentially negative impacts of research engagement alongside benefits’. 9 Our work suggests that a variety of mechanisms are plausible, although the effects of research activity on job satisfaction and practitioner well-being were most salient among our respondents. We sought evidence of negative impacts, but respondents reported few in principle and none in practice. Future research could usefully explore the differential impacts of different types of research, and whether the benefits reported here could be maximised through particular models of research activity or additional facilitation and support. Declarations Ethical approval NHS ethics approval was granted by South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/SC/0251) on 13/08/21. Informed, written consent was sought from all participants in accordance with ethical requirements. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding This project is funded by the NIHR Policy Research Programme (ARAPAHO NIHR 201428). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the DHSC. Authors’ contributions CK, JJamison, and JJones were involved in the development of the materials, data collection and qualitative analysis. SP, JUS and PB contributed to interpreting the qualitative data and revising. The manuscript was drafted by CK and PB. PB, JUS, SP, AB, PL and CM were responsible for the conception and design of the study and advised throughout on revisions to the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript for submission. Acknowledgements Recruitment for this study was supported by local Clinical Research Networks: CRN-Greater Manchester, CRN-East of England, CRN-North Thames and CRN-Northwest Coast. This study was supported by PPIE groups in Manchester (PRIMER), Cambridge and London. We also thank the NIHR School for Primary Care Research for additional support for patient and public involvement. We would also like to acknowledge the input from Professor Richard McManus, Professor Steve Hanney and Dr Bryony Soper, our project advisors. References Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J (2011) The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 104(12):510–520. 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180 [published Online First: 2011/12/20] Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T et al (2015) Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open ;5(12) Downing A, Morris EJA, Corrigan N et al (2017) High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut 66(1):89 Jonker L, Fisher SJ, Badgett RG (2022) Hospital clinical research activity, rather than staff motivational engagement, significantly links effective staff communication and favourable patient feedback; a cross-sectional study. J Healthc Qual Res 37(1):44–51. 10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.06.007 [published Online First: 20210825] Jonker L, Fisher SJ, Dagnan D (2020) Patients admitted to more research-active hospitals have more confidence in staff and are better informed about their condition and medication: Results from a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Eval Clin Pract 26(1):203–208. 10.1111/jep.13118 Jonker L, Fisher SJ (2015) NHS Trusts' clinical research activity and overall CQC performance - Is there a correlation? Public Health 129(11):1491–1495. 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026 [published Online First: 20150812] Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S et al (2015) Research Activity and the Association with Mortality. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118253. 10.1371/journal.pone.0118253 McManus RJ, Ryan R, Jones M et al (2007) How representative of primary care are research active practices? Cross-sectional survey. Fam Pract 25(1):56–62. 10.1093/fampra/cmm065 Hanney S, Boaz A, Jones T et al (2013) Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Delivery Res 1(8). 10.3310/hsdr01080 Siegel RM, Bien J, Lichtenstein P et al (2006) A Safety-Net Antibiotic Prescription for Otitis Media: The Effects of a PBRN Study on Patients and Practitioners. Clin Pediatr 45(6):518–524. 10.1177/0009922806290567 Hammersley V, Hippisley-Cox J, Wilson A et al (2002) A comparison of research general practices and their patients with other practices–a cross-sectional survey in Trent. Br J Gen Pract 52(479):463–468 [published Online First: 2002/06/08] Meineche-Schmidt V, Hvenegaard A, Juhl HH (2006) Participation in a clinical trial influences the future management of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24(7):1117–1125. 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M et al (2015) Process evaluation of complex interventions. Medical Research Council guidance Francetic IA-O, Meacock R, Elliott J et al Framework for identification and measurement of spillover effects in policy implementation: intended non-intended targeted non-targeted spillovers (INTENTS). (2662 – 2211 (Electronic)) Pullmann MD, Dorsey S, Duong MT et al (2022) Expect the unexpected: A qualitative study of the ripple effects of children’s mental health services implementation efforts. Implement Res Pract 3:26334895221120797. 10.1177/26334895221120797 Macfarlane F, Shaw S, Greenhalgh T et al (2005) General practices as emergent research organizations: a qualitative study into organizational development. Fam Pract 22(3):298–304. 10.1093/fampra/cmi011 Ritchie J, Lewis J (2003) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, London Butler CC, Hobbs FDR, Gbinigie OA et al (2023) Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial. Lancet 401(10373):281–293. 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02597-1 [published Online First: 2022/12/26] Sheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J et al (2020) Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials 21(1):259. 10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3 Warwick-Giles L, Hammond J, Bailey S et al (2021) Exploring commissioners' understandings of early primary care network development: qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract 71(710):e711–e18. 10.3399/bjgp.2020.0917 [published Online First: 20210826] Checkland K, Hammond J, Warwick-Giles L et al (2020) Exploring the multiple policy objectives for primary care networks: a qualitative interview study with national policy stakeholders. BMJ Open 10(7):e038398. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038398 [published Online First: 20200705] BMJ Quality & Safety 2014;23(10):801. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002779 Sheard L, Peacock R Fiddling while Rome burns? Conducting research with healthcare staff when the NHS is in crisis. J Health Organ Manag 2019;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print) 10.1108/jhom-04-2019-0105 Riley R, Spiers J, Buszewicz M et al (2018) What are the sources of stress and distress for general practitioners working in England? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 8(1):e017361. 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017361 [published Online First: 20180111] Newington L, Wells M, Adonis A et al (2021) A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. BMC Health Serv Res 21(1):400. 10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y [published Online First: 20210429] Weston C, Ahluwalia S, Bassett P et al (2017) GP Training practices in England: a description of their unique features based on national data. Educ Prim Care 28(6):313–318. 10.1080/14739879.2017.1345649 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 22 Apr, 2024 Read the published version in BJGP Open → Version 3 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Show more versions Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3591256","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":266516288,"identity":"2bdcdbbd-5206-4d06-af11-cca93b17362e","order_by":0,"name":"Cassandra Kenning","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-4051","institution":"The University of Manchester","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Cassandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Kenning","suffix":""},{"id":266516289,"identity":"457e835b-5680-4381-b7d8-57368450de66","order_by":1,"name":"Juliet A Usher-Smith","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531","institution":"University of Cambridge","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Juliet","middleName":"A","lastName":"Usher-Smith","suffix":""},{"id":266516292,"identity":"9453edeb-69c6-45bf-bf4c-80f9e7e298c2","order_by":2,"name":"James Jamison","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6452-0561","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"James","middleName":"","lastName":"Jamison","suffix":""},{"id":266516293,"identity":"1567a09a-30de-4f1a-9cdb-6c899827bb71","order_by":3,"name":"Jennifer Jones","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6936-6092","institution":"University of Leicester","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jennifer","middleName":"","lastName":"Jones","suffix":""},{"id":266516294,"identity":"c0a38869-aa34-4762-80b8-ce4f0463ca85","order_by":4,"name":"Annette Boaz","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0557-1294","institution":"King's College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Annette","middleName":"","lastName":"Boaz","suffix":""},{"id":266516295,"identity":"187b4343-d954-4f82-a77e-1fcc5f98c9ca","order_by":5,"name":"Paul Little","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-1873","institution":"University of Southampton","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paul","middleName":"","lastName":"Little","suffix":""},{"id":266516297,"identity":"7eef797a-863b-4c10-821b-958bf635cd29","order_by":6,"name":"Christian Mallen","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-1028","institution":"Keele University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christian","middleName":"","lastName":"Mallen","suffix":""},{"id":266516299,"identity":"903b24b2-b36a-4106-99e4-2804ff2fa72f","order_by":7,"name":"Peter Bower","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9558-3349","institution":"The University of Manchester","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"","lastName":"Bower","suffix":""},{"id":266516300,"identity":"75941bae-b63b-4496-979c-c6929861eae3","order_by":8,"name":"Sophie Park","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1521-2052","institution":"University College London","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sophie","middleName":"","lastName":"Park","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-11-10 14:01:45","currentVersionCode":3,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0073","type":"published","date":"2024-04-22T22:03:01+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":52928928,"identity":"85753ce9-daac-47fd-a1d9-759d648d9747","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-18 19:34:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41624,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMechanisms linking research activity and general practice performance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3591256/v3/3ce91994f2a18e744df0afac.png"},{"id":55689476,"identity":"797f68c2-cd46-4777-a0a6-d87cd0171609","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-05-01 22:03:05","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":637005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3591256/v3/d9605baa-a291-4c9a-9a09-b3322610c4f2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAlthough the benefits of research are traditionally thought to occur through its implementation into practice,\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e there is increasing evidence that engaging in research activity itself is directly associated with better performance.\u003csup\u003e2\u0026ndash;7\u003c/sup\u003e For example, hospitals with high levels of cancer research show better outcomes among their patient populations with cancer and not participating in research.\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e Most of this evidence is from secondary care, but there is a developing literature from general practice also suggesting associations between research activity in a practice and improved performance by that practice on a range of measures.\u003csup\u003e8\u0026ndash;12\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf such a relationship exists, an important question concerns the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship, as an understanding of mechanisms is necessary if the relationship is to be strengthened and supported.\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA published review identified five potential mechanisms linking research activity and outcomes.\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e Mechanisms included \u0026lsquo;absorptive capacity\u0026rsquo;, where research activity leads to changes in the ability of organisations to use information effectively, and specific \u0026lsquo;improvements in care processes\u0026rsquo; through research (such as greater monitoring of research patients). Other potential pathways included using research to identify problems in organisational processes, or changes arising through greater links between organisations through the research process (such as between practice and academic teams or research network staff). The review also distinguished \u0026lsquo;intentional\u0026rsquo; impacts of research activity from those which reflected an indirect \u0026lsquo;spillover\u0026rsquo;\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e or \u0026lsquo;ripple\u0026rsquo; effect.\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e Additionally, there are impacts which were specific to particular research studies (i.e. a trial in a single clinical condition raising quality of care in that condition) to impacts which are not restricted to that research area.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis initial categorisation of mechanisms drew on a literature dominated by hospital studies and reflected a range of international health care systems. The authors highlighted the need \u0026lsquo;to build understanding of mechanisms, and to explore potentially negative impacts of research engagement alongside benefits\u0026rsquo;. Such exploration is particularly needed in general practice, where there is a limited literature available.\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e General practices are smaller organisations, serving local, diverse patient populations, with potentially different activity outcomes compared with hospitals. Research activity in general practice is varied in scope, ranging from large trials to qualitative studies. It includes interventional and observational research, primary and secondary data (i.e. research databases such as the Clinical Practice Research Datalink); and publicly funded and commercial research. Research activity also varies by amount (e.g. numbers of studies and patients), duration and complexity; the scale of clinician, practice team and patient involvement, and the level of support from industry, academic and research network partners. Finally, research might be more or less focussed on questions related to routine general practice clinical work, as only a minority of studies may derive directly from the experiences and needs of general practice staff and their patients.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, conducted in collaboration with a large and cross-England Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group, we aim to explore the views of general practice staff and wider stakeholders on the mechanisms by which engaging in research might impact on practice performance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSampling\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Twenty general practices were sampled for variation based on publicly available data on their size, location, patient demographics and quality of care, combined with data on research activity and outcomes from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and contextual information gathered through liaison with local Clinical Research Network staff. Based on discussions with PPI contributors, we included practices that had recently been through a process of becoming \u0026lsquo;research active\u0026rsquo; through their Local Clinical Research Network (LCRN) and those which were considered highly \u0026lsquo;research active\u0026rsquo;. To become \u0026lsquo;research active\u0026rsquo;, practices go through a process of registering with the LCRN and completing the Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training prior to starting any research activity. \u0026lsquo;Non-research active\u0026rsquo; practices had not engaged with their LCRN or expressed interest in becoming research active. We found year-on-year research activity very variable, with some practices increasing activity and some decreasing at the time of interview.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn information sheet was distributed through local networks and direct mailings to practices. Clinical and non-clinical staff in the practice who had a role or held an interest in research were informed about the study. We also recruited stakeholders from agencies involved with research in general practice, such as research networks and local primary care organisations, based on recommendations from practice staff. For ethical approval, we set a limit of 100 participants, although this was designed to be flexible in case some interviews were done with multiple participants. NHS ethics approval was granted by South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/SC/0251) on 13/08/21.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected via semi-structured interviews either in person or remotely (Teams/Zoom), lasting between 30\u0026ndash;60 minutes, between 02/12/2021 and 28/09/2022 by three local researchers CK (F) (University of Manchester), JJones (F) (University College London) and JJamison (M) (University of Cambridge). All interviews were conducted individually. Written or verbal consent was sought at interview. We recorded age, sex, ethnicity, as well as current employment, role, and job satisfaction and each participant was given an identification code.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview schedules were broad, including experiences of research, characteristics of an \u0026lsquo;effective\u0026rsquo; research practice, and the management of overlap between clinical and research activity, although the analysis presented here is focussed on staff perceptions of mechanisms linking research activity and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterviews were audio-recorded, transcribed professionally, and imported into NVivo 12 for analysis. Field notes were also collected to better understand practice organisation, culture and their wider context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAnalysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFramework analysis\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e was used with the support of NVivo v.12, (QRS International). All researchers went through a process of familiarisation with the first four interviews. Each transcript was carefully read, and a code applied to describe or interpret passages. This stage of open coding was completed independently by the three researchers. A coding frame was then developed by consensus. The working analytical framework was then applied independently by the researchers to transcripts of the interviews they conducted. Framework matrices were generated through NVivo. The research team met regularly in \u0026lsquo;data clinics\u0026rsquo; to discuss emerging findings and update the interview schedules as needed. Once coding was complete the separate NVivo files in London and Cambridge were sent to Manchester for further analysis and the development of themes across the dataset. Two PPI events were held to explore their views on the emergent themes and incorporate their feedback.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn total 62 interviews were completed (Tables \u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Around two thirds of practice staff participants were female, ages ranged between 22\u0026ndash;56 years of age, 40% worked fulltime at the practice and the majority reported high levels of job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterview participants by role\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractice staff\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGP Trainee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNurse\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractice manager\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrials Co-ordinator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdministrator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePharmacist\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStakeholders\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrimary care network\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Commissioning Group*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNIHR Clinical Research Network\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003e*Now Integrated Care Systems\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral practice staff characteristics:\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStaff (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemale (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28 (68%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAge years, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e21\u0026ndash;30\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31\u0026ndash;40\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 (41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e41\u0026ndash;50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51\u0026ndash;60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhite British (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27 (66%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYears in role, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18 (44)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12 (29)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e15+\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFull Time, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 (41)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction score \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1\u0026ndash;7 scale), n (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh satisfaction (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34 (85)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow satisfaction (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMechanisms linking research activity and general practice performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe extracted the themes relating to mechanisms, which we divided into \u0026lsquo;direct\u0026rsquo; mechanisms (where there was a clear link between the mechanism and general practice performance) and \u0026lsquo;indirect\u0026rsquo; mechanisms (where the link was mediated through broader changes). The core themes are presented in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and then further expanded in the text.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e[Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects on care - additional resources\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the main benefits of research activity was the access to extra resources, including extra income that could be reinvested into the practice:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eAnd then secondly we also try to use research as a way to boost our revenue a little bit, so we do try to have a nice mix between commercial studies and ones that benefit the patients, obviously the ones that can help generate some revenue for us is always good, particularly ones where we can afford to fund more staff to get involved with the research projects. Because we want to keep growing and I think the way we see doing that is by creating a big enough revenue stream that we can almost have a research team embedded in the practice\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (M03S04- Practice Manager)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome studies were seen as beneficial because they provided access to equipment such as scanners, centrifuges, freezers or home monitoring devices. Not all of the benefits described were clinical. Staff and stakeholders described the value of time for patients, with increased appointment times for recruitment and access to staff (such as research nurses) giving patients someone else with time to attend to them, again relieving pressure on practices.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;a lot of our patients, they enjoy\u0026hellip;we don\u0026rsquo;t have the time restraints that you would have with general practice. So, we can see a patient for up to an hour, whereas in general practice, maybe you are limited to a sort of seven-minute time slot, or a ten-minute time slot. And they also get, almost like a backdoor into the surgery.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (CS407- Clinical Trials Manager)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects on care - Improved knowledge and skills\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking part in research was seen by some practitioners as a way of keeping up to date with innovations in health and care, including awareness of new treatments. Trials were seen as a way of potentially \u0026lsquo;upskilling\u0026rsquo; the practice team by providing extra learning about new procedures. For those that were involved in the set-up of studies, reading study protocols could provide an update on current evidence for particular conditions.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Well, I think every time we have a new research project, and we\u0026rsquo;re all talking about them and, especially with my team, there\u0026rsquo;s new syndromes that they never even knew existed, or new words or new ways of seeing people or new thought process, of how can we help with this in a different way? So, for example, the inflammation markers was an interesting one, so we were all talking about that. Oh my goodness, because we\u0026rsquo;ve got people who we know, who suffer from depression, but there might be an inflammatory cause behind it. So yes, it creates conversation and interest, yes\u0026rdquo;. (CS508- Care Co-ordinator)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects on care - Improved systems\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGeneral practice staff are often involved in the identification of potentially eligible research participants. Respondents noted that the processes of running searches and identifying eligible patients gave them the opportunity to maximise accuracy and consistency of coding, helping to improve care through maintenance of systems for identification and follow-up of patients. This had the further potential for improving assessment of practice performance in the Quality and Outcomes pay for performance scheme, and the external ratings of practices by the independent regulator (the Care Quality Commission):\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;And sometimes it can be, from our point of view, being able to flag up and pick up patients a lot better after sometimes the research team have done searches on the practice numbers and recognise that actually there are these patients that haven\u0026rsquo;t been coded, for example.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (MSH05- GP partner and Research Lead for PCN)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects on care - Better care for patients\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSome practitioners thought that taking part in research could give them access to more modern and evidenced-based services, such as increased access to specialist services (e.g. mental health) or \u0026lsquo;extra\u0026rsquo; tests for their patients, facilitating access for patients and helping relieve burden on practice resources.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;So usually one of the first things we look at is benefit for the patients, so we look at opportunities that patients might not have access to elsewhere. We\u0026rsquo;re from quite a deprived area and there\u0026rsquo;s obviously quite a lot of disparity in healthcare of quite poor outcomes, so we tend to look for studies that have good outcomes for patients first of all\u003c/em\u003e (M03S04- Practice Manager)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother impact on patient care raised was that screening patients for study participation might lead to reviews of specific patient groups and picking up on clinical issues that may have otherwise been missed or detected later. Whilst this potentially could lead to increased workload for practitioners, practices perceived this as a potential benefit for patients. For example, studies around Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) where patients were told that they have CKD following a search of practice records, reportedly generated additional work in terms of patient queries and appointments to explain the diagnosis to patients who were not aware they had it. However, this \u0026lsquo;extra\u0026rsquo; work was recognised as being in line with best practice:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think although in that case it was a little bit more work, actually it highlighted something that we should have been doing anyway. He should have known that he had kidney disease and someone should have had that conversation. I expect there will be a few more bits like that that will probably bring us in to line with best practice as well. So it might be a little bit more work but I think it is all in the right direction. It has not deviated from what we are doing in terms of patient care on a day to day basis and it fits in with managing his CKD.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (M04S07- GP, salaried)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDirect effects on care - Improved relationships with patients\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn research-active practices, some staff reported that patients may view staff as more knowledgeable, taking more notice of advice they give. Some practitioners reported that engaging a patient in research gave them the opportunity to build their relationship and increase trust. Other members of practice staff also saw these benefits, reporting more positive feedback from patients involved in research:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think like a lot of other practices, we struggle with some negative feedback at times with how hard it is to meet demand and everyone wanting appointments and everything the same day or exactly when they want, so you can sometimes get in a bit of a negative environment with that, but this as a separate arm, the patients have all been fantastic when they\u0026rsquo;ve been on these studies. So I think those ones that have been involved so far have seen a massive positive benefit and we\u0026rsquo;ve noticed the positive feedback which is something we don\u0026rsquo;t always get.\u0026rdquo; (M03S04- Practice Manager)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect effects on performance \u0026ndash; Improved practice image\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough respondents reported that improved relationships with patients could result from their active participation in research, others spoke of the wider impact where being known for taking part in research had a positive effect on the practice reputation, with these practices being thought of as more \u0026lsquo;progressive\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;innovative\u0026rsquo; compared to others. Stakeholders involved in research outside the specific practices also suggested that research activity was indicative of a well-run practice that must be doing the everyday clinical work effectively to be able to take on additional tasks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect effects on performance \u0026ndash; Job satisfaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOne of the most significant benefits reported by staff active in research was the positive impact on their job satisfaction. In a system under pressure, the variety offered by research to their daily routine was seen as essential in helping maintain a good working environment. Particularly, GPs reported that research activity complemented their clinical roles, offered variety, revitalised them during their clinics and therefore potentially reduced burnout.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Other reasons, so from a selfish point of view, it just varies the week for me. I think when you do slightly different things it keeps you fresh mentally, does keep you going. And if you do\u0026hellip;I think if\u0026hellip;if you do the same thing again, and again, especially in GP, you can burn out quite quickly.\u0026rdquo; (M03S05- GP partner)\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther factors raised included improved self-esteem, taking pride in research work and making a contribution to national and global health. A further theme from some of the practice staff interviews was improved team working due to delivering research, in particular across practices when research involved activity across a wider primary care network:\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eI think so, and I think the other thing about general practice often in this job is, you work in silo, so when you\u0026rsquo;re doing research studies it actually\u0026hellip;it\u0026rsquo;s an opportunity to work in very small groups with other people and deliver something where you\u0026rsquo;re all working on the same project as others. So, it\u0026rsquo;s nice having these little mini projects to work on, gives a focus for the group, and actually helps engagement within teams as well.\u003c/em\u003e (L01S01- GP partner)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIndirect effects on performance \u0026ndash; Staff recruitment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch activity of general practices was not always explicit to all of those respondents in the practice, and indeed not always visible outside of the practice. However, some interviewees did report that it could influence recruitment and that they thought this would increasingly become a \u0026lsquo;selling point\u0026rsquo; in the future.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Yes, I think it\u0026rsquo;s something that\u0026rsquo;s advertised, you know, when we\u0026rsquo;re recruiting for staff. It\u0026rsquo;s something that interested me in coming back to the practice so I\u0026rsquo;ve spoken to other people who have been thinking about applying for jobs here and it is something that people are interested in, so yes. \u0026hellip;I don\u0026rsquo;t know about the wider staff in general. For me, it makes me more inclined to stay here because, you know, it\u0026rsquo;s something that not a lot of GP practices do. But yes, I don\u0026rsquo;t know about everybody else.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e (CS311- GP, salaried)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were also comments on the positive effects being a research active practice might have on the type of staff attracted to posts. For example, people identified as \u0026lsquo;forward thinking staff\u0026rsquo; and those who are progressive or keen to learn by offering expanded roles or portfolio careers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSummary\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong a range of staff in practices demonstrating a range of research activity, multiple potential impacts of research activity on practice performance were identified. Of those discussed, the impacts on their working lives were most salient.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur recruitment procedures ensured a reasonable level of geographical diversity and we were able to use a range of data to sample according to levels of research activity. Nevertheless, although we achieved good variation in some characteristics, it is likely that volunteers for the study would have represented more research active practices (by design) and those likely to have had a more positive experience of research activity, and who may have been more willing to entertain the idea that such research improved practice performance. Although it is possible that these impacts would motivate future research activity, our focus was not on \u003cem\u003ewhy\u003c/em\u003e practices engaged in research, but the wider impacts they reported when they did. We interviewed wider stakeholders as we felt that such staff would have a complementary perspective on the benefits of research across a \u003cem\u003erange\u003c/em\u003e of practices compared to practice staff working within a single practice. It should be noted that research activity is integrated into care quality inspections in hospital settings, but not primary care.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFramework analysis allows a systematic and flexible approach to coding qualitative data.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing a framework approach ensured consistency in coding across the three sites (Manchester, London and Cambridge) and allowed us to explore patterns and differences. Regular meetings and discussion of codes resulted in changes to the framework and interview schedules to focus on areas of interest that arose in particular interviews. We did not take an explicit realist approach although further analyses could explore the mechanisms we outline in this paper and the contexts which may make them more or less important, which could include characteristics of staff, the research activity undertaken, the wider practice population or context (such as region or levels of deprivation).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis research was conducted end of 2021 to mid-2022, after most COVID restrictions had been lifted, although the impacts were still evident. Many of the practices still limited waiting in patient areas, were using remote consultations and reported reduced capacity for \u0026lsquo;extras\u0026rsquo; such as research activity, or a focus on COVID-specific research.\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eComparison with existing literature\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs noted previously, the categorisation of mechanisms developed by a previous review\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e was developed from a broader literature. We mapped our data to those categories and found some similarities, including some evidence of increases in \u0026lsquo;absorptive capacity\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;improvements in care processes\u0026rsquo;. The former saw impacts such as additional resources as a result of research, reinvestment of research income, training, and updated knowledge of treatment options. Improvements in care processes included access to care, such as a treatment patients would not usually be able to access, which is a fairly common finding in patients,\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e increased monitoring through trial follow-up visits and extended appointments. There was less reporting of the other mechanisms. Some respondents reported impacts related to the mechanism \u0026lsquo;organisational mechanisms within health care system\u0026rsquo;, such as research processes identifying issues (such as poor coding). However, this was relatively uncommon. Formal collaborative linkages driven by research were also uncommon (beyond the support function of research network staff), although some practices reported starting to look at sharing research resources and participation across practices as part of the primary care network,\u003csup\u003e20 21\u003c/sup\u003e rather than as individual organisations. This could provide a platform for wider impact if benefits were more widely shared.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFormal \u0026lsquo;action and participatory research\u0026rsquo; is less common in primary care and thus it is unsurprising that this was rarely reported. More generally, much of the research reported here represented general practice teams supporting \u0026lsquo;external\u0026rsquo; research activity through recruitment and consenting of patients, rather than research initiated by practice teams, or reflecting a closer collaboration and partnership between research and practitioner communities.\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e It is possible that these closer collaborations and participation are a much more impactful platform for change compared to the more traditional research which dominated most of the activity reported here.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe core mechanism we did identify was research activity affecting the job satisfaction of those members of staff who participate, where the break from routine activity, change of pace and sense of achievement seemed to be salient for many staff. This is an interesting counterpoint to concerns that research activity is blocked by system pressures.\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e It is not known whether this reflects the particular pressures on the general practice workforce,\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e although such impacts have been identified in other professional groups outside medicine.\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e It is also not clear if these impacts are specific to research or could be replicated by any alternative activity, such as teaching or quality improvement work.\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e Negative impacts on practice performance were rarely raised, although the levels of research activity in many practices was modest and issues of time and opportunity costs would have been less apparent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for research/practice\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe conclusion of a comprehensive review looking at the link between research activity and outcomes highlighted the need \u0026lsquo;to build understanding of mechanisms, and to explore potentially negative impacts of research engagement alongside benefits\u0026rsquo;.\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e Our work suggests that a variety of mechanisms are plausible, although the effects of research activity on job satisfaction and practitioner well-being were most salient among our respondents. We sought evidence of negative impacts, but respondents reported few in principle and none in practice. Future research could usefully explore the differential impacts of different types of research, and whether the benefits reported here could be maximised through particular models of research activity or additional facilitation and support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNHS ethics approval was granted by South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/SC/0251) on 13/08/21.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed, written consent was sought from all participants in accordance with ethical requirements.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project is funded by the NIHR\u0026nbsp;Policy Research Programme (ARAPAHO NIHR 201428). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the DHSC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026rsquo; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCK, JJamison, and JJones were involved in the development of the materials, data collection and qualitative analysis. SP, JUS and PB contributed to interpreting the qualitative data and revising. The manuscript was drafted by CK and PB. PB, JUS, SP, AB, PL and CM were responsible for the conception and design of the study and advised throughout on revisions to the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript for submission.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecruitment for this study was supported by local Clinical Research Networks: CRN-Greater Manchester, CRN-East of England, CRN-North Thames and CRN-Northwest Coast.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by PPIE groups in Manchester (PRIMER), Cambridge and London.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also thank the NIHR School for Primary Care Research for additional support for patient and public involvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would also like to acknowledge the input from Professor Richard McManus, Professor Steve Hanney and Dr Bryony Soper, our project advisors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J (2011) The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 104(12):510\u0026ndash;520. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 2011/12/20]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoaz A, Hanney S, Jones T et al (2015) Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open ;5(12)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDowning A, Morris EJA, Corrigan N et al (2017) High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study. Gut 66(1):89\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJonker L, Fisher SJ, Badgett RG (2022) Hospital clinical research activity, rather than staff motivational engagement, significantly links effective staff communication and favourable patient feedback; a cross-sectional study. J Healthc Qual Res 37(1):44\u0026ndash;51. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.06.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jhqr.2021.06.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20210825]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJonker L, Fisher SJ, Dagnan D (2020) Patients admitted to more research-active hospitals have more confidence in staff and are better informed about their condition and medication: Results from a retrospective cross-sectional study. J Eval Clin Pract 26(1):203\u0026ndash;208. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/jep.13118\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jep.13118\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJonker L, Fisher SJ (2015) NHS Trusts' clinical research activity and overall CQC performance - Is there a correlation? Public Health 129(11):1491\u0026ndash;1495. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.puhe.2015.07.026\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20150812]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOzdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S et al (2015) Research Activity and the Association with Mortality. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118253. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1371/journal.pone.0118253\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0118253\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcManus RJ, Ryan R, Jones M et al (2007) How representative of primary care are research active practices? Cross-sectional survey. Fam Pract 25(1):56\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/fampra/cmm065\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/fampra/cmm065\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHanney S, Boaz A, Jones T et al (2013) Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Delivery Res 1(8). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3310/hsdr01080\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3310/hsdr01080\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiegel RM, Bien J, Lichtenstein P et al (2006) A Safety-Net Antibiotic Prescription for Otitis Media: The Effects of a PBRN Study on Patients and Practitioners. Clin Pediatr 45(6):518\u0026ndash;524. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/0009922806290567\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0009922806290567\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHammersley V, Hippisley-Cox J, Wilson A et al (2002) A comparison of research general practices and their patients with other practices\u0026ndash;a cross-sectional survey in Trent. Br J Gen Pract 52(479):463\u0026ndash;468 [published Online First: 2002/06/08]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeineche-Schmidt V, Hvenegaard A, Juhl HH (2006) Participation in a clinical trial influences the future management of patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in general practice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 24(7):1117\u0026ndash;1125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03046.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMoore GF, Audrey S, Barker M et al (2015) Process evaluation of complex interventions. Medical Research Council guidance\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrancetic IA-O, Meacock R, Elliott J et al Framework for identification and measurement of spillover effects in policy implementation: intended non-intended targeted non-targeted spillovers (INTENTS). (2662\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;2211 (Electronic))\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePullmann MD, Dorsey S, Duong MT et al (2022) Expect the unexpected: A qualitative study of the ripple effects of children\u0026rsquo;s mental health services implementation efforts. Implement Res Pract 3:26334895221120797. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/26334895221120797\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/26334895221120797\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacfarlane F, Shaw S, Greenhalgh T et al (2005) General practices as emergent research organizations: a qualitative study into organizational development. Fam Pract 22(3):298\u0026ndash;304. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/fampra/cmi011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/fampra/cmi011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRitchie J, Lewis J (2003) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, London\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eButler CC, Hobbs FDR, Gbinigie OA et al (2023) Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial. Lancet 401(10373):281\u0026ndash;293. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02597-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02597-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 2022/12/26]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheridan R, Martin-Kerry J, Hudson J et al (2020) Why do patients take part in research? An overview of systematic reviews of psychosocial barriers and facilitators. Trials 21(1):259. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13063-020-4197-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarwick-Giles L, Hammond J, Bailey S et al (2021) Exploring commissioners' understandings of early primary care network development: qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract 71(710):e711\u0026ndash;e18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3399/bjgp.2020.0917\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3399/bjgp.2020.0917\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20210826]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCheckland K, Hammond J, Warwick-Giles L et al (2020) Exploring the multiple policy objectives for primary care networks: a qualitative interview study with national policy stakeholders. BMJ Open 10(7):e038398. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038398\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038398\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20200705]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eBMJ Quality \u0026amp; Safety\u003c/em\u003e 2014;23(10):801. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002779\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSheard L, Peacock R Fiddling while Rome burns? Conducting research with healthcare staff when the NHS is in crisis. \u003cem\u003eJ Health Organ Manag\u003c/em\u003e 2019;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1108/jhom-04-2019-0105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/jhom-04-2019-0105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiley R, Spiers J, Buszewicz M et al (2018) What are the sources of stress and distress for general practitioners working in England? A qualitative study. BMJ Open 8(1):e017361. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017361\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017361\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20180111]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNewington L, Wells M, Adonis A et al (2021) A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis exploring the impacts of clinical academic activity by healthcare professionals outside medicine. BMC Health Serv Res 21(1):400. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12913-021-06354-y\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e[published Online First: 20210429]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeston C, Ahluwalia S, Bassett P et al (2017) GP Training practices in England: a description of their unique features based on national data. Educ Prim Care 28(6):313\u0026ndash;318. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/14739879.2017.1345649\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14739879.2017.1345649\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[{"identity":"395afcd2-5932-46be-87b4-32e7eea007c3","identifier":"10.13039/501100000272","name":"National Institute for Health Research","awardNumber":"ARAPAHO NIHR 201428","order_by":0}],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Manchester","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"primary care, research activity, general practice, qualitative","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere 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 which might underlie that relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAim\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDesign \u0026amp; Setting\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethod\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in \u0026lsquo;research ready\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;research active\u0026rsquo; general practices and with 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants described potential \u0026lsquo;direct\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;indirect\u0026rsquo; impacts on their work. \u0026lsquo;Direct\u0026rsquo; impacts included research changing practice work (e.g. additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (e.g. access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. \u0026lsquo;Indirect\u0026rsquo; impacts included job satisfaction (e.g. 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). Respondents identified few negative impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStaff 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, respondents 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.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":3,"date":"2024-03-18 19:34:04","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v3","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":2,"date":"2024-01-11 15:53:35","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v2","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}},{"code":1,"date":"2023-11-14 03:44:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3591256/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8d762f5d-5153-4bfe-9a77-c582464888e0","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":28090210,"name":"General Practice"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-05-01T22:03:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3591256","link":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0073","journal":{"identity":"bjgp-open","isVorOnly":true,"title":"BJGP Open"},"publishedOn":"2024-04-22 22:03:01","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 22nd, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-03-18 19:34:04","video":"","vorDoi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0073","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0073","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v3","identity":"rs-3591256","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3591256","identity":"rs-3591256","version":["v3"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}