Strategies for research capacity building by family physicians in primary care: a scoping review
Margarida Gil Conde
1 2 * , Carolina Penedo 3 , Francisco Freitas Barcelos 4 , Raquel Carmona Ramos 5 , Sofia Silvério Serra 6 , Cristina Ribeiro 2 7 , Paulo Jorge Nicola 7 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Abstract
Research in primary care (PC) is essential for improving patient outcomes and healthcare systems. However, family physicians often face barriers to conducting research, including limited training, time constraints, and lack of institutional support. Identifying effective strategies to build research capacity can help integrate research into PC practice.
This scoping review identifies and synthesises strategies that strengthen family physicians’ research capacity in PC.
The review followed the PRISMA-ScR methodology. We included studies published up to 2023 in English, Portuguese, or Spanish that described relevant research capacity building (RCB) strategies for family physicians in PC, with no restrictions on study design. A comprehensive search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. This review protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (1).
We included 19 studies and identified five key strategic approaches to RCB in PC: (1) Training and mentoring programmes – Structured educational initiatives and mentorship developed research skills. (2) Networking – Collaborative research networks fostered engagement. (3) Blueprint development – Frameworks guided research initiatives. (4) Strategic communication interventions – Awareness campaigns promoted a research culture. (5) Knowledge transfer and exchange – Mechanisms facilitated the application and dissemination of research findings.
Implementing multifaceted strategies enhances family physicians’ involvement in research and strengthens the research culture in PC. Combining structured training programmes, professional networking, and strategic communication fosters a more research-friendly environment. Future studies should assess how adaptable these strategies are to different PC settings, evaluate their long-term impact, and integrate other professional groups within PC.
Keywords: blueprints for research capacity building, family physicians, knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE), knowledge translation, practice-based research networks (PBRNs), primary care research, research capacity building, research mentoring, research networks, research training, strategic communication.
| WHAT GAP THIS FILLS |
| What is already known: This scoping review explores and synthesises strategies for enhancing research capacity among family physicians in primary care (PC), identifying approaches that can facilitate their involvement in research. |
| The review highlights five key strategic approaches – Training and mentoring programmes, Networking, Development of strategic models (blueprints), Strategic communication interventions, and Knowledge transfer and exchange – which can strengthen research engagement and improve the integration of research into clinical practice. |
| What this study adds: Implementing multifaceted capacity-building strategies can foster a stronger research culture in PC, ultimately leading to improved evidence-based care. Future research should focus on assessing these strategies’ adaptability and long-term impact across different healthcare settings. |
Introduction
Research in primary care (PC), especially within family medicine (FM), is essential for fostering academic and clinical quality while meeting the distinct health requirements of various communities.1–3 Family physicians, due to their closeness to communities and their function in delivering ongoing care, have a distinctive viewpoint that can greatly enhance population health outcomes and diminish morbidity and death.4
Notwithstanding recent breakthroughs, FM research in PC continues to be underdeveloped, exhibiting considerable untapped potential.5,6 Primary obstacles are inadequate infrastructure, restricted funding, and insufficient allocation of research time for family physicians.7 Engagement among field experts is minimal, and research is inadequately incorporated into clinical practice.8 Strategies are frequently formulated by researchers for policymakers; however, it is crucial to pinpoint specific methods that family physicians may implement to further research.2,5 Organisations such as the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) and the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) emphasise the pressing necessity to augment research capacity and promote engagement among family physicians.2
In this context, we conducted a scoping review to investigate and validate strategies for enhancing research in primary health care by family physicians.9 We acknowledge that research in PC is inherently collaborative and involves a range of healthcare professionals, however, this review focused exclusively on family physicians due to their central role in care continuity, clinical coordination, and decision-making within PC settings.10,11 We recognise that the strategies supporting research capacity may differ across professional groups and therefore chose to examine the specific barriers and enablers experienced by family physicians to ensure conceptual clarity and practical relevance.12 This scoping review seeks to systematically catalogue the current literature to identify and evaluate strategies for research capacity building (RCB) among family physicians in PC environments. An initial search across multiple databases indicated the absence of current or ongoing systematic studies pertaining to this specific topic. This review fills the information gap by examining several sources, including published research articles, reports, and policy documents, to gain a thorough understanding of the strategies utilised to improve research capability among family physicians.
This scoping review’s findings offer significant insights into the identification and organisation of various RCB strategies employed by family physicians, their implementation contexts, and their effects on research engagement and output, thereby enhancing healthcare delivery and population health outcomes.12
Methods
The scoping review followed the most recent guidelines established by JBI for methodological rigour. The final review adhered to the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews, ensuring transparent and structured reporting.13 A review protocol was developed and published in BMJ Open.12 The review was also registered on the Open Science Framework, where the dataset remains publicly accessible.
Search strategy
A search strategy was collaboratively designed by one reviewer and an information specialist, with oversight from a second reviewer (Appendix Table A1). This approach effectively identified both peer-reviewed and grey literature. In line with JBI recommendations, a three-phase search process was employed. Initially, a limited PubMed search was conducted to identify relevant articles, and the keywords and terms from these were used to build a comprehensive search strategy. This strategy was applied to several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Additionally, the reference lists of all included studies were screened for other relevant articles, with the search approach tailored for each database.
To ensure the effectiveness and rigour of our search strategy, the PRESS 2015 Guideline Evidence-Based Checklist was applied.14 This framework provides structured recommendations for evaluating electronic search strategies, including aspects such as Boolean logic, subject headings, text-word searching, syntax, and limits. Applying the PRESS checklist helped us verify the completeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of our search across multiple databases.
Eligibility criteria
We applied the PCC (Population–Concept–Context) framework to define our eligibility criteria.
Study selection
All citations retrieved from the search were consolidated and uploaded into Rayyan, a web-based tool specifically designed to facilitate the screening process in systematic and scoping reviews. Duplicates were removed within this platform.15 The screening process began with one independent reviewer examining titles and abstracts. Articles deemed potentially eligible underwent full-text review by two reviewers, who assessed them against the predefined inclusion criteria. The reasons for excluding studies during the full-text review were documented. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved through discussion. When required, authors were contacted via email or ResearchGate for additional information or access to full articles. We included studies published in English, Portuguese, or Spanish between 2008 and 2023, as this timeframe was considered appropriate for identifying recent advancements in RCB strategies. During the initial exploratory review, it became evident that the heterogeneity of care settings posed challenges for cross-contextual comparison. We therefore decided to limit inclusion to studies situated within PC environments. This refinement aimed to ensure conceptual coherence and enhance comparability across studies.
Studies were included if they explicitly focused on RCB strategies involving family physicians within PC contexts. Studies were excluded if they did not focus on family physicians (wrong population) or they took place in settings not defined as PC (eg hospitals, hospices, or home care), even if family physicians were involved (wrong context). Although we initially considered a broader scope, we refined our criteria during full-text screening to maintain a coherent analytical focus, given the variability in family doctors’ roles across settings. We also excluded studies focused solely on continuing clinical development without a clear link to RCB. No restrictions were applied regarding study design or methodological quality, as the objective was to capture a broad spectrum of applicable strategies. The selection process was visually summarised in a PRISMA flow diagram, with exclusions clearly documented.
The evaluation framework for the included studies is summarised in Table 1.
| Variable | Definition | |
|---|---|---|
| Title | The title of the study or article. | |
| Authors | Names of the authors responsible for the study. | |
| Date of publication | Year the study was published. | |
| Population | Family physicians. | |
| Concept | RCB strategies. | |
| Context | PC setting or environment in which the study was conducted. | |
| Type of strategy | Category of the strategy employed, such as training, networking, or integrated approaches. | |
| Results | Key findings of the study, particularly those related to the implementation and impact of the strategies. |
Data extraction
Three independent reviewers extracted data using a framework adapted from the JBI template, ensuring alignment with the review’s objectives. To ensure consistency, a pilot extraction of data from 5 to 10 studies was carried out by two reviewers independently, with any discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. Extracted information included study details (eg author, year, location, study type), strategies employed for RCB, and the outcomes of these strategies. In cases where data were missing or incomplete, study authors were contacted directly. When overlapping data were found, only the primary study was considered.
Data analysis
We conducted a descriptive and thematic analysis to synthesise the data extracted from the included studies. The strategies identified were grouped into five overarching categories – Training and mentoring programmes, Networking, Blueprint development, Strategic communication interventions, and Knowledge transfer and exchange – based on their stated objectives, implementation methods, and intended outcomes. This categorisation emerged inductively during data extraction and was refined through team discussion to ensure coherence and comprehensiveness. The analysis aimed to map the range and characteristics of RCB strategies involving family physicians in PC, in line with the exploratory nature of scoping reviews. No formal assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias was conducted, as per scoping review guidance.9
Assumptions
This scoping review was conducted based on numerous assumptions to ensure inclusivity and comprehensiveness. It was initially proposed that strategies targeting family physicians in PC were relevant regardless of geographical context or healthcare system, as the objective was to examine diverse RCB techniques. We proposed that certain macro-level or management-oriented strategies may be adapted or directly implemented by family physicians in their practice. Secondly, similar approaches were organised into broad categories (eg training, networking) to enhance data synthesis, while acknowledging any overlap. The study relied on reported outcomes from the included studies without independent validation of their effectiveness, as the aim was to include a wide range of techniques rather than evaluate their quality.
Ethics and dissemination
Since the review exclusively utilised publicly available data, no ethical approval was necessary.
Patient and public involvement
While the review primarily focused on family physicians in PC, the involvement of patients and the public was integral to the process. Semi-structured interviews with family physicians experienced in research helped refine the focus of the study during its early stages.16 Additionally, patients and members of the public participated in a steering group, contributing valuable perspectives that shaped the research question and highlighted the broader significance of RCB. A public forum will be organised to present the results to stakeholders, including family physicians, policymakers, patients, and the public. This forum will foster meaningful dialogue and ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in interpreting the findings and developing actionable recommendations.
Results
Of the 1809 references identified, 618 duplicates were excluded, and 119 were marked as ineligible by Rayyan. After applying the inclusion criteria, 852 references were excluded at the title screen, 181 at the abstract screen, and 20 were either not retrieved or excluded at the full-text screen. Ultimately, 19 studies were included in the review.
The RCB strategies discovered in these studies were categorised into five primary groups: Training and mentoring programmes; Networking; Blueprint development; Strategic communication interventions; and Knowledge transfer and exchange. The characteristics of each study are presented in Table 2. This encompasses the study title, authors, year, population, context, and strategy type.
| Title | Authors | Year | Population | Context | Type of strategy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| An evaluation of the ‘designated research team’ approach to building research capacity in primary care17 | Cooke J, Nancarrow S, Dyas J, Williams M | 2008 | Primary care practitioners (including general practitioners) | Primary and community care settings | Networking | |
| Structured career pathways in academic primary care18 | Foy R, Eccles M | 2008 | Primary care physicians interested in academic careers | Academic primary care | Networking, Mentoring | |
| Researcher networking drives change: An autoethnographic narrative analysis from medical graduate to primary health researcher19 | Elliot-Rudder M | 2010 | Rural general practice trainee and general practice obstetrician who transitions into a primary health researcher. | Rural primary healthcare setting | Networking, Training | |
| Family medicine research capacity building: Five-weekend programmes in Ontario20 | Rosser W, Godwin M, Seguin R | 2010 | Family physicians in Ontario | Canadian primary care/FM | Training, Networking | |
| Establishing the Victorian primary care practice-based research network21 | Soós M, Temple-Smith M, Gunn J, Johnston-Ata’Ata K, Pirotta M | 2010 | A primary care practice-based research network | Australian primary care | Networking | |
| Series: The research agenda for general practice/family medicine and primary health care in Europe. Part 6: Reaction on commentaries – how to continue with the Research Agenda?22 | Van Royen P, Beyer M, Chevallier P, Eilat-Tsanani S, Lionis C, Peremans L, Petek D, Rurik I, Soler JK, Stoffers HE, Topsever P, Ungan M, Hummers-Pradier E | 2011 | Family Physicians/researchers | Primary healthcare | Blueprint | |
| Research development stories from 7 departments of family medicine: 7 lessons for all departments23 | Kuzel A, James P; Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM) | 2011 | FM departments | United States primary care | Networking | |
| The contribution of primary health care research, evaluation and development-supported research to primary health care policy and practice24 | Brown LJ, McIntyre EL | 2012 | Family physicians/researchers | Australian primary healthcare | Blueprint | |
| Increasing GP supervisor research skills – Enhancing clinical practice and teaching25 | Abbott P, Reath J, Rosenkranz S, Usherwood T, Hu W | 2014 | General practitioner supervisors | Primary care clinical practice | Training | |
| Creating an interest in research and development as a means of reducing the gap between theory and practice in primary care: An interventional study based on strategic communication26 | Morténius H | 2014 | Primary care staff (including physicians and other professionals) | Swedish primary healthcare | Strategic communication intervention | |
| Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit27 | Friesen EL, Comino EJ, Reath J, Derrett A, Johnson M, Powell Davies G, Teng-Liaw S, Kemp L | 2015 | Practitioner-researchers | Primary and community health research settings in south-west Sydney | Training | |
| Curriculum development of the 6for6 longitudinal research skills programme for rural and remote family physicians28 | McCarthy P, Bethune C, Fitzgerald S, Graham W, Asghari S, Heeley T, Godwin M | 2016 | Rural and remote family physicians | Rural primary healthcare | Training | |
| Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: The views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe5 | Huas C, Petek D, Diaz E, Muñoz-Perez MA, Torzsa P, Collins C | 2019 | General practitioners/family physicians in Europe | European primary care | Primary care training, Networking | |
| Fostering global primary care research: A capacity-building approach29 | Ponka D, Coffman M, Fraser-Barclay KE, Fortier RDW, Howe A, Kidd M, Lennon RP, Madaki JKA, Mash B, Mohd Sidik S, van Weel C, Zawaly K, Goodyear-Smith F | 2020 | Family physicians, primary healthcare workers, and decision-makers | Global primary healthcare | Blueprint, Training, Networking | |
| Nurturing a culture of curiosity in family medicine and primary care: The Section of Researchers’ Blueprint 2 (2018–2023)30 | Fortin M, Pereira J, Hutchison B, Ramsden VR, Menear M, Snelgrove D | 2021 | Family physicians and decision-makers | Canadian primary healthcare | Blueprint, Training, Networking | |
| Implementation of online research training and mentorship for sub-Saharan African family physicians31 | McGuire CM, Fatusin BB, Kodicherla H, Yakubu K, Ameh P, van Waes A, Rhoad E, Jack BW, Scott NA | 2021 | Early-career family physicians (within 5 years of qualification) | Sub-Saharan African primary healthcare | Training | |
| The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe32 | Collins C, Diaz E, Petek D, Muñoz MA, Violán Fors C, Tatsioni A, Eliat-Tsanani S, Lingner H, Asenova R, Lionis C, Dobbs F, Ungan M, Tkachenko V | 2022 | General practice/FM researchers and networks | European general practice/FM | Community engagement, Knowledge transfer and exchange | |
| Research interests of family physicians applying for research training33 | Carroll JK, Hester CM, Lutgen CB, Callen E, Hunt S, Lanigan AM, Bartlett-Esquilant G, Irwin G, Jones WA, Loskutova N, Mabachi NM, Okuyemi KS, Peterson LE, Smith RE Jr, Tabel C, Weidner A | 2023 | Family physicians applying for research training | United States primary healthcare | Knowledge transfer and exchange, Training | |
| Strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research: A systematic review34 | Girard A, Dugas M, Lépine J, Carnovale V, Jalbert L, Turmel A, Stéfan T, Poirier A-A, Mailhot B, Skidmore B, Couturier Y, Miller S, LeBlanc A | 2023 | Family physicians | Primary care settings | Networking |
A detailed synthesis of the implementation context, specific strategies, observed outcomes, and key conclusions from each study is provided in Appendix Table A2.
Training and mentoring programmes were the most frequently described strategies. Online and in-person training initiatives, often supported by structured mentorship, were designed to strengthen research competencies among early-career family physicians. For instance, McGuire et al. implemented an online training and mentorship programme in sub-Saharan Africa that significantly improved participants’ deliverables and engagement.31 Similarly, McCarthy et al. reported that a longitudinal programme for rural and remote physicians enhanced skills, research confidence, and network-building.28 Other studies highlighted mentorship as a critical success factor, including Friesen et al.,27 Abbott et al.,25 and Carroll et al.,33 though they also noted challenges such as communication barriers and limited structure in mentorship delivery (Table A1).
Networking strategies were central to fostering a collaborative research culture. The establishment of Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs), as described by Soós et al.,21 and institutional-level support for research collaboration and infrastructure,23 were shown to enhance research engagement and productivity. Peer recruitment approaches also showed promise, as in the systematic review by Girard et al.,34 which found higher participation in research when family physicians were approached by their peers.
Blueprint strategies involved the development of structured, often top-down frameworks to coordinate and support RCB initiatives. The Australian PHCRED Strategy24 and the Section of Researchers’ Blueprint in Canada30 both demonstrated how national-level strategies can align training, _mentorship, and institutional collaboration. Ponka et al.29 also emphasised the role of e-learning and interdisciplinary integration in their global blueprint. Importantly, Van Royen et al.22 stressed the need to include family physicians in setting research priorities to enhance relevance and uptake.
Strategic communication interventions, though less frequently described, were effective in stimulating interest and engagement. Morténiusimplemented a communication campaign in Swedish PC that increased research interest, particularly among younger professionals and those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.26
Knowledge transfer and exchange strategies focused on promoting the applicability of research findings in clinical settings and facilitating stakeholder engagement. Collins et al.32 highlighted the importance of involving both patients and practitioners in identifying relevant research priorities. Carroll et al.33 also demonstrated how family physicians’ research interests often stem directly from their clinical challenges, reinforcing the potential of bottom-up approaches to guide capacity-building efforts.
Discussion
The results of this review highlight several effective strategies for developing research capacity among family physicians. The data analysis reveals a combination of approaches, including training and mentoring programmes, the establishment of collaborative networks, the development of specific research models, and strategic communication interventions, all aimed at strengthening family physicians’ engagement in research. Collectively, these findings support the adoption of complementary and context-sensitive strategies to promote family physicians’ involvement in research.
Continuous training and mentoring are identified as key strategies for building research capacity at this level.35 Online training programmes and targeted mentoring initiatives have proven effective, particularly for early-career family physicians, helping them enhance their competencies and integrate into research networks. These programmes have been instrumental not only in improving technical skills but also in fostering a research culture. However, future training programmes must incorporate structured mentorship elements, as mentoring is regarded as a crucial tool for long-term success. Language and communication barriers have been reported in existing mentorship programmes, suggesting the need to refine their format and ensure more accessible and responsive support.31
Several mentorship programmes described in the included studies reflect characteristics of adaptive mentorship networks – being context-responsive, inclusive of early-career professionals, and often integrated with broader institutional support. These adaptive features align with emerging literature on mentorship as a tool for creating equitable and high-quality research environments in PC.36
Furthermore, the creation of collaborative networks among healthcare professionals, such as PBRNs, plays a vital role in cultivating a research culture within PC. The formation of sustainable working groups that encourage collaboration between family physicians and other PC researchers contributes to strengthening research capacity. Strategies that promote cooperation across different institutions and professionals are crucial for developing a robust research infrastructure.
The implementation of strategic plans, such as ‘blueprint’ models and the establishment of research agendas, also emerges as a valuable approach. Although these models often follow a top-down approach, they enable the integration of specific strategies for training, knowledge transfer, and networking, providing a clear framework for developing research capacity in PC. Including family physicians in the process of defining research priorities is equally essential to ensure that research remains relevant, clinically and community-oriented, and appealing to these professionals.
Finally, strategic communication has proven effective in fostering research interest, particularly among younger professionals. Communication interventions designed to raise awareness about the importance of research and the practical application of its findings are fundamental for sustaining family physicians’ long-term engagement in research.
Study limitations
The emphasis on family physicians excludes strategies other healthcare providers employ or in different contexts, which may provide valuable insights. While our protocol was based on the PCC framework, we initially considered a broader scope during the exploratory phase. However, it became evident that the heterogeneity of care settings made cross-contextual comparison difficult. We therefore refined our inclusion criteria to focus on studies clearly situated within PC environments. Additionally, this study does not cover the interpersonal and systemic dynamics among family physicians, other PC providers, and the PC system itself, which are important aspects for developing progressively multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research models. The variability among the included studies presented challenges in synthesising the results, as the examined strategies often differed significantly in concept, scope, and implementation, complicating comparisons. Distinguishing between measures that family physicians can directly adopt and those designed for them but implemented by others also proved challenging, potentially limiting the specificity of the findings. Finally, there may be interpretative bias, as the data relied on self-reported results without external verification.
In summary, this review’s findings suggest that implementing multifaceted strategies is essential for overcoming barriers to family physicians’ involvement in research. A combination of training, mentoring, collaborative networks, research model development, and strategic communication presents a promising pathway for strengthening RCB in PC, ultimately contributing to the continuous improvement of care quality.
Despite the range of RCB strategies identified, important implementation gaps persist. Many mentorship programmes, though effective, lack formal structure and long-term sustainability. Research time is often unprotected, and integration into daily clinical practice remains limited. Additionally, while networks and blueprints are widely promoted, their actual adoption at institutional or system levels is inconsistent.37 There is also a noticeable gap in interdisciplinary collaboration, which is increasingly necessary in complex primary healthcare systems. Addressing these gaps is crucial to ensuring that RCB efforts are not only initiated but sustained and impactful.17 Future work could expand upon this by systematically comparing RCB strategies across other PC professionals to promote a more integrated and transdisciplinary research culture in PC.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this scoping review identified five key strategies for building research capacity by family physicians in PC: Training and mentoring programmes, Networking, Blueprint development, Strategic communication interventions, and Knowledge transfer and exchange. These strategies are crucial in overcoming one of the primary barriers to RCB in PC – the difficulty in engaging family physicians in research activities. The findings underscore the importance of comprehensive training, fostering professional networks, and creating clear frameworks to guide research involvement. Additionally, effective communication and the transfer of knowledge between professionals can enhance collaboration and encourage greater participation in research. Implementing these strategies will not only support family physicians in expanding their research capabilities but also contribute to the overall strengthening of research within primary healthcare settings.
These findings highlight the need to move from isolated initiatives to more sustainable and integrated systems for RCB. Future efforts should focus on formalising mentorship structures, securing protected research time, and promoting institutional cultures that value and support family physicians’ engagement in research.
Data availability
The data supporting the findings of this study are available in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. The study protocol, search strategy, and extracted data can be accessed at https://osf.io/hjnv5. Any additional data or materials related to this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Declaration of funding
We declare that we did not receive any funding for developing or conducting the current scoping review.
References
1 De Maeseneer JM, De Sutter A. Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question. Ann Fam Med 2004; 2(Suppl 2): 17-22.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
3 Gotler RS. Unfinished Business: the role of research in family medicine. Ann Fam Med 2019; 17(1): 70-76.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
4 Howe A, Kidd M. Challenges for family medicine research: a global perspective. Fam Pract 2019; 36(2): 99-101.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
5 Huas C, Petek D, Diaz E, et al. Strategies to improve research capacity across European general practice: the views of members of EGPRN and Wonca Europe. Eur J Gen Pract 2019; 25(1): 25-31.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
6 Westfall JM, Wittenberg HR, Liaw W. Time to invest in Primary Care Research - Commentary on Findings from an Independent Congressionally Mandated Study. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36(7): 2117-2120.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
7 Lucan SC, Phillips RL, Jr, Bazemore AW. Off the roadmap? Family medicine’s grant funding and committee representation at NIH. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6(6): 534-542.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
8 Norris TE. Challenges for family medicine and for family physicians. J Am Board Fam Pract 2004; 17(6): 474.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
9 Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18(10): 2119-2126.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
10 Grady C, Han H, Kim DH, et al. Family physicians collaborating for health system integration: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23(1): 68.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
11 Khatri R, Endalamaw A, Erku D, et al. Continuity and care coordination of primary health care: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23(1): 750.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
12 Gil Conde M, Costa I, Silvério Serra S, et al. Strategies for research capacity building by family physicians in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14(2): e077632.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
13 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169(7): 467-473.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
14 McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 75: 40-46.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
15 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, et al. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5(1): 210.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
16 Morgado MB, Rodrigues V, Carmona Ramos R, et al. Strategies for the promotion of Primary Health Care Research in Portugal: a qualitative study. Acta Med Port 2024; 37(2): 110-118.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
17 Cooke J, Nancarrow S, Dyas J, et al. An evaluation of the “Designated Research Team” approach to building research capacity in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 2008; 9: 37.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
18 Foy R, Eccles M. Structured career pathways in academic primary care. Fam Pract 2008; 25(1): 63-67.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
19 Elliott-Rudder M. Researcher networking drives change: an autoenthnographic narrative analysis from medical graduate to primary health researcher. Aust J Prim Health 2010; 16(1): 108-115.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
20 Rosser W, Godwin M, Seguin R. Family medicine research capacity building: five-weekend programs in Ontario. Can Fam Physician 2010; 56(3): 94.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
21 Soós M, Temple-Smith M, Gunn J, et al. Establishing the Victorian Primary Care Practice Based Research Network. Aust Fam Physician 2010; 39: 857-862.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
22 Van Royen P, Beyer M, Chevallier P, et al. Series: The research agenda for general practice/family medicine and primary health care in Europe. Part 6: Reaction on commentaries - how to continue with the Research Agenda? Eur J Gen Pract 2011; 17(1): 58-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
23 Kuzel A, James P. Research development stories from 7 departments of family medicine: 7 lessons for all departments. Ann Fam Med 2011; 9(4): 373-374.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
24 Brown LJ, McIntyre EL. The contribution of Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development-supported research to primary health care policy and practice. Aust J Prim Health 2014; 20(1): 47-55.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
25 Abbott P, Reath J, Rosenkranz S, et al. RACGP - Increasing GP supervisor research skills – enhancing clinical practice and teaching. Available at https://www.racgp.org.au/afp/2014/may/gp-supervisor-research-skills/ [accessed 10 February 2025].
26 Morténius H. Creating an interest in research and development as a means of reducing the gap between theory and practice in primary care: an interventional study based on strategic communication. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2014; 11(9): 8689-8708.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
27 Friesen EL, Comino EJ, Reath J, et al. Building research capacity in south-west Sydney through a Primary and Community Health Research Unit. Aust J Prim Health 2014; 20(1): 4-8.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
28 McCarthy P, Bethune C, Fitzgerald S, et al. Curriculum development of 6for6: longitudinal research skills program for rural and remote family physicians. Can Fam Physician 2016; 62(2): e89-e95.
| Google Scholar | PubMed |
29 Ponka D, Coffman M, Fraser-Barclay KE, et al. Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach. BMJ Glob Health 2020; 5(7): e002470.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
30 Fortin M, Pereira J, Hutchison B, et al. Nurturing a culture of curiosity in family medicine and primary care: the Section of Researchers’ Blueprint 2 (2018-2023). Can Fam Physician 2021; 67(5): 333-338.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
31 McGuire CM, Fatusin BB, Kodicherla H, et al. Implementation of online research training and mentorship for Sub-Saharan African family physicians. Ann Glob Health 2021; 87(1): 13.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
32 Collins C. The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe. Eur J Gen Pract 2022; 28(1): 136-141.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
33 Carroll JK, Hester CM, Lutgen CB, et al. Research interests of family physicians applying for research training. BMC Med Educ 2023; 23(1): 617.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
34 Girard A, Dugas M, Lépine J, et al. Strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2023; 29(1): 233-249.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
35 Solbach-Sabbach C, Adar T, Alperin M, et al. Engaging family medicine residents in research training: an innovative research skills program in Israel. Educ Health 2019; 32(2): 79-83.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
36 Krishna LKR, Kwok HYF, Ravindran N, et al. A systematic scoping review of mentoring support on professional identity formation. BMC Med Educ 2024; 24(1): 1380.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
37 Matus J, Walker A, Mickan S. Research capacity building frameworks for allied health professionals – A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18(1): 716.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Appendix 1.
| Search | Query | Record retrieved | |
|---|---|---|---|
| PubMed search conducted on 27 October 2023 | |||
| #1 | strateg*[Title/Abstract] OR intervention*[Title/Abstract] OR promot*[Title/Abstract] OR improv*[Title/Abstract] OR develop*[Title/Abstract] OR generat*[Title/Abstract] OR implement*[Title/Abstract] OR leadership[MeSH Terms] OR solution*[Title/Abstract] OR recommendation*[Title/Abstract] | 11,969,791 | |
| #2 | (research[MeSH Terms] OR investigat*[Title/Abstract] OR “health service* research”[Title/Abstract]) AND (capacity building[MeSH Terms] OR “capacity-building”[Title/Abstract] OR capability*[Title/Abstract]) | 31,763 | |
| #3 | family practice[MeSH Terms] OR physicians, family[MeSH Terms] OR physicians, primary care[MeSH Terms] OR general practice[MeSH Terms] OR primary health care[MeSH Terms] OR “family medicine”[Title/Abstract] OR “family physician*”[Title/Abstract] OR “general practi*”[Title/Abstract] OR “family doctor*”[Title/Abstract] OR “general family”[Title/Abstract] OR “family clinician*”[Title/Abstract] OR “primary care”[Title/Abstract] OR “primary-care”[Title/Abstract] OR “primary healthcare”[Title/Abstract] OR “family medicine research department*”[Title/Abstract] OR “academic family medicine department*”[Title/Abstract] OR “general practice research department*”[Title/Abstract] OR “academic general practice department*”[Title/Abstract] | 410,126 | |
| #4 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 389 | |
| #5 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 356 | |
| Filters: humans | |||
| #6 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 324 | |
| Filters: humans, 2008–2023 | |||
| #7 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 323 | |
| Filters: humans, 2008–2023, English, Portuguese, Spanish | |||
| Scopus search conducted on 2 November 2023 | |||
| #1 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (strateg* OR intervention* OR promot* OR improv* OR develop* OR generat* OR implement* OR leadership OR solution* OR recommendation*) | 35,507,873 | |
| #2 | TITLE-ABS-KEY ((research* OR investigat* OR “health service* research”) AND (“capacity building” OR “capacity-building” OR capability*)) | 367,973 | |
| #3 | TITLE-ABS-KEY (“family practice” OR “primary health care” OR “primary healthcare” OR “primary care” OR “primary-care” OR “family medicine” OR “general family” OR “family physician*” OR “primary care physician*” OR “general practi*” OR “family doctor*” OR “family clinician*” OR “family medicine research department*” OR “academic family medicine department*” OR “general practice research department*” OR “academic general practice department*”) | 442,436 | |
| #4 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 1182 | |
| #5 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 999 | |
| Filters: 2008–2023 | |||
| #6 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 920 | |
| Filters: 2008–2023, English, Portuguese, Spanish | |||
| Web of Science search conducted on 2 November 2023 | |||
| #1 | TOPIC (strateg* OR intervention* OR promot* OR improv* OR develop* OR generat* OR implement* OR leadership OR solution* OR recommendation*) | 25,632,088 | |
| #2 | TOPIC ((research* OR investigat* OR “health service* research”) AND (“capacity building” OR “capacity-building” OR capability*)) | 162,604 | |
| #3 | TOPIC (“family practice” OR “primary health care” OR “primary healthcare” OR “primary care” OR “primary-care” OR “family medicine” OR “general family” OR “family physician*” OR “primary care physician*” OR “general practi*” OR “family doctor*” OR “family clinician*” OR “family medicine research department*” OR “academic family medicine department*” OR “general practice research department*” OR “academic general practice department*”) | 284,440 | |
| #4 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 472 | |
| #5 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 450 | |
| Filters: 2008–2023 | |||
| #6 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 447 | |
| Filters: 2008–2023, English, Portuguese, Spanish | |||
| Cochrane Library search conducted on 16 November 2023 | |||
| #1 | (strateg* OR intervention* OR promot* OR improv* OR develop* OR generat* OR implement* OR leadership OR solution* OR recommendation*) in Title Abstract Keyword | 1,096,223 | |
| #2 | (research* OR investigat* “health service research”) AND (capacity building OR “capacity-building” OR capability*) in Title Abstract Keyword | 1190 | |
| #3 | (“family practice” OR “primary health care” OR “primary healthcare” OR “primary care” OR “primary-care” OR “family medicine” OR “general family” OR “family physician” OR “primary care physician” OR “general practice” OR “family doctor” OR “family clinician” OR “family medicine research department” OR “academic family medicine department” OR “general practice research department” OR “academic general practice department”) in Title Abstract Keyword | 31,981 | |
| #4 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 119 | |
| #5 | #1 AND #2 AND #3 | 119 | |
| Filters: Jan 2008–Oct 2023 | |||
| Type of strategy | Strategy description | Results from strategy implementation | Conclusions | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Online training programme to build research capacity for early-career family physicians. | Participants completed 55% of deliverables and engaged in regular mentorship sessions. | Practical and effective for Sub-Saharan Africa; future programmes should focus on structured mentorship. | 31 | |
| Strategy to build research capacity and disseminate findings in primary and community health. | Teams presented work at conferences and forums, but only one manuscript was submitted for publication. | Mentorship and targeted training were effective for building research capacity in primary care. | 27 | ||
| Training, using the Glasziou’s triangle, and practical support to increase research engagement by GP supervisors. | GP supervisors showed a desire to become more involved in research, especially in using research evidence to enhance their clinical practice and teaching. They identified training and practical support from regional training providers, universities, and Medicare Locals as essential for boosting their research engagement. | Enhanced research training, better access to resources, and stronger collaborative research networks can enable GP supervisors to more effectively incorporate research into their teaching and clinical work. | 25 | ||
| Longitudinal programme to enhance research skills for rural and remote family physicians. | Participants improved skills, felt empowered, and established research networks. | Effective in fostering a research culture and has potential for long-term impact on rural health outcomes. | 28 | ||
| Research topics pursued by family physicians seeking research training. | Family physicians seeking research training are primarily interested in a wide range of topics, including: new technologies and tools, interventions or strategies aimed at improving healthcare efficiency, improving care for vulnerable or disadvantaged populations, and enhancing methods for screening and diagnosing diseased. | Strong potential for family physicians to drive research capacity building (RCB) by identifying and addressing research questions that directly arise from their clinical practice. | 33 | ||
| Networking | Establishing a network to encourage research and build capacity among primary care practitioners. | Developed a sustainable funding model and contributed to a research-oriented culture in primary care. | Demonstrated the importance of PBRNs for evidence-based care and research capacity building. | 21 | |
| Investment in people: leadership and teams with recruitment and retention strategies, and infrastructure: research spaces. Promoting collaboration inside and across institutions. | Featured research departments invested on strong leadership, people and infrastructure. These have team-based approaches, dedicated research spaces and networking support. | A research-supportive culture with research oriented leaders is essential, along with fostering collaboration across researchers and institutions to drive innovation and successful research departments. | 23 | ||
| Peer recruitment and research capacity development programmes to engage family physicians in primary care research. | Involving a fellow physician as a recruiter led to higher participation rates in research. Although most capacity development programmes report increased scientific productivity among family physicians, the lack of rigorous evaluation limits conclusions on their effectiveness. | There are promising strategies to involve family physicians in research, but it is essential to conduct more rigorous studies to validate their long-term effectiveness and improve their implementation. | 34 | ||
| Designated Research Team (DRT) model to support primary care clinicians in developing and conducting relevant research. | Promoted collaboration, provided protected research time, and ensured sustainability. | Effective but requires further research to isolate key success factors. | 17 | ||
| Building structured career pathways for researchers in primary care. | To have a structured career pathway in research, family physicians should foster interdisciplinary collaborations, and formal research training. Mentorship, networking, and early research exposure help develop essential skills like grant writing and project management. | Family Physicians should invest in training, collaborations, networking and mentorship programmes to establish a structured research career pathway. | 18 | ||
| Blueprint | Blueprint with strategies on training, knowledge transfer, and networking. | Key strategies include e-learning support, interprofessional collaboration, and engaging residents/students in ongoing research projects. Integrating clinicians and researchers within departments, along with utilising Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs). | This blueprint directs key strategies for training, knowledge transfer, and networking by promoting e-learning, collaboration, and cross-disciplinary engagement. | 29 | |
| Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy. | The PHCRED Strategy included training, networking, mentorship, and funding, contributing to an increase in publications by first-time authors. | Top-down strategies where family physicians can participate in training, networking and mentorship programmes can contribute to an effective engagement in research activities and capacity building. | 24 | ||
| Research agenda that proposes a model of family medicine to guide future research. | To develop a research agenda focused on clinical, person-centred, community-oriented, and management aspects, it is essential to involve family physicians in setting research priorities. | The involvement of family physicians in setting research priorities can guide future research directions. | 22 | ||
| Blueprint for research in PHC with strategies on RCB for FM training programmes. | The increase in research content within family medicine (FM) training curricula and the incorporation of research metrics into FM residency training programmes can lead to research capacity building. | Changes in FM training curricula and residency programmes can contribute to increased scientific production in this field. | 30 | ||
| Training/networking | Weekend programmes to build research capacity for family physicians. | Participants gained research skills, improved critical analysis of literature, and adapted practices. | Effective and adaptable format that contributes to a research-oriented culture in family medicine. | 20 | |
| Implementation of mentorship and exchange programmes. Dissemination of Clinical Research Networks. | Mentorship is highly valuable for emerging researchers, supporting their professional growth and helping them navigate the complexities of research. Exchange programmes and research networks promote knowledge-sharing and collaboration across diverse settings, broadening research perspectives and methodologies. | Investment in mentorship and exchange programmes and dissemination of research networks are crucial for strengthening research in primary health care. | 5 | ||
| Development of a motivational interviewing-inspired approach to researcher development. | The intervention fosters collaboration, evocation and autonomy to create a sustainable and self-directed research culture. | Motivational interviewing- Inspired interventions can be broadly applied to researcher development, fostering autonomy, collaboration, and intrinsic motivation. | 19 | ||
| Knowledge transfer and exchange | Identifying research priorities, involving patients and stakeholders, and focusing on the application of research findings in clinical practice. | Family physicians should identify knowledge gaps and establish relevant research priorities for clinical practice, promote participation of patients and other stakeholders, and focus on applicability of results into practice. | Involving family physicians in capacity building can enable the active participation in relevant research with applicability in clinical practice. | 32 | |
| Strategic Communication | Intervention to promote research interest among healthcare professionals through strategic communication. | Increased research and development interest, particularly among younger staff and those in higher socioeconomic groups. | Strategic communication is effective for sustaining research and development engagement | 26 |
