Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/876
Title: Perceived barriers and incentives to doctors' participation in research in Australian private and public practice : a survey.
Epworth Authors: Tan, Nicole
Other Authors: Kasza, J.
Keywords: Poster 43
Survey
Private Practice
Public Practice
Research
Participation
Barriers
Epworth HealthCare, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: Jul-2016
Citation: Poster 43
Conference: Research Week 2016
Conference Location: Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia
Abstract: There is a anecdotal evidence that doctors are reluctant to participate in research in the private setting. The aim of this study was to determine whether perceived barriers and incentives to doctors' participation in research differed between private and public practice. Methods: In this analytical cross-sectional observational study, all medical specialists who treated 50 or more patients at Epworth HealthCare in 2015 were invited to complete a survey in April 2016. Results: The response rate was 29.2% (289 respondents). 26.4 % of respondents were female 48.6% participated in research in private practice. 74.0% of respondents also work in the public setting, and of these 73.5% participate in research in that setting. Of those who participate in research in the private setting, 46.3% would like to do more. Of those who do not, 24.6% are interested in participating. Compared to the public setting, respondents in the private setting were more likely to agree that 'trials are poorly designed' ( OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.09-1.88), they' don't know where to start' (OR 1.90, 95%CI 1.47-2.46), there's 'not enough Research staff' (OR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16-2.19), there's no suitable mentor/supervisor' (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.25-2.08) and 'patients don't want to participate in trials' (OR 1.51, 95%CI 1.17-1.94). Compared to the public setting, respondents in the private setting were less likely to agree that 'a role as part of a research team' ( OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.61-0.99) and 'protected/remunerated research time' (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.37-0.61) were important. Although the following factors were important to both groups (research education, assistance with grant/ethics applications, peer recognition/support from colleagues, supportive organisational culture, personal interest, available time, funding) there was no significant difference in the importance of these factors between respondents in private and public settings. All results are adjusted for gender and years since specially graduation. Conclusion: Though many barriers and incentives to research are important in both settings there is a significant difference between private and public stings for some factors. Attention to these may improve doctors' research participation in private practice.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11434/876
Type: Conference Poster
Affiliated Organisations: Monash University
Type of Clinical Study or Trial: Survey
Appears in Collections:Health Administration

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in EKB are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.