Research productivity of primary care and general practice scientific papers in China in 2021^☆

Abstract

Background: With the deepening of healthcare reform in China, research in primary care and general practice has rapidly developed in recent years, leading to a significant increase in the number of published papers.

Objective: To summarize and analyze the scientific papers published in the field of primary care and general practice in China in 2021, and to explore their characteristics in terms of publication volume, journals, regions, institutions, research categories, research methods, and number of authors.

Methods: This study employed a scoping review method and bibliometric techniques to systematically retrieve and quantitatively analyze scientific papers in the field of primary care and general practice published in 2021 by Chinese research institutions. The databases used for this study included CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, and Web of Science.

Results: In 2021, a total of 3,122 original research papers were published in the field of primary care and general practice in China. The number of paper published in primary care facilities accounted for 57.69 %, with most papers authored by single authors. Among these facilities, those located in eastern China contributed 80.12 % of the publications. The main research categories were clinical researches (58.23 %) and health services researches (27.07 %). Co-occurrence analysis of keywords using VOSviewer indicated that research topics focused on “chronic disease management” and “family doctors contracted services.” The predominant research methods were randomized controlled trials (40.87 %) and cross-sectional studies (36.71 %). The majority of these papers were published in non-core and non-SCI/SSCI journals (76.75 %), with only 6.98 % published in SCI/SSCI journals.

Conclusion: The productivity level in the field of primary care and general practice in China has now reached a globally leading position, with primary care facilities in the eastern regions making significant contributions. The research topics are closely aligned with institutional practices and health policies in China. However, there are still several challenges in this field, such as a lack of collaboration among researchers in primary care facilities, potential quality concerns due to the extensive use of randomized controlled trial methods, and low recognition of Chinese research in this field by international SCI/SSCI journals.

Keywords

Primary health care / General practice / Research methods / Bibliometrics / Review

Declarations

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Declaration of competing interest

C.X. and X.Y. are editors of Chinese General Practice, but they did nor participate in review of the manuscript.

Authors' contributions

Conceptualization, W.Y., X.Z. and X.Y.; Methodology, W.Y., and X.Z.; Data curation, C.X. and W.Y.; Formal analysis, C.X. and W.Y.; Funding acquisition, not applicable; Project administration, X.Y.; Resources, not applicable; Supervision, W.Y. and X.Y. ; Validation, W.Y. and X.Y. ; Writingoriginal draft, C.X.; Writingreview and editing, W.Y. and X.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors' other information

Not applicable.

References

[1] Hajjar F, Saint-Lary O, Cadwallader JS, et al. Development of primary care research in North America, Europe, and Australia from 1974 to 2017. Ann Fam Med. 2019; 17(1):49-51. doi: 10.1370/afm.2328.

[2] Starfield B. A framework for primary care research. J Fam Pract. 1996; 42(2):181-185.

[3] Van Weel C, Rosser WW. Improving health care globally: a critical review of the necessity of family medicine research and recommendations to build research capacity. Ann Fam Med. 2004; 2(Suppl 2). doi: 10.1370/afm.194.

[4] World Health Organization. Operational framework for primary health care: transforming vision into action. 2020.

[5] Meng QY, Mills A, Wang LD, et al. What can we learn from China’s health system reform. BMJ. 2019;365.

[6] Wang ZX, Liu R, Lu Y, et al. 2016 community health service center research capacity ranking. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2018; 21(17):2034-2037. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2018.00.014.

[7] Bo XJ, Lu Y, Liu R, et al. 2018 community health service center research capacity ranking and prospects. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2018; 21(17):2038-2042. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2018.00.005.

[8] Yu DH, Wang ZX, Lu Y, et al. Evaluation and prospect of scientific research capacity of community health service centers in China (2019). (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2019; 22(28):3406-3410. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.511.

[9] Glanville J, Kendrick T, McNally R, et al. Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis. BMJ. 2011:342.

[10] Shao S, Jin GH, Chen C, et al. Distribution of scientific research papers related to general practice from 2003 to 2012. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2015; 18(1):116-120. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2015.01.38.

[11] 3rd Mainous AG, Seehusen D, Shokar N. CAFM Educational Research Alliance (CERA) 2011 residency director survey. Fam Med. 2012; 44(10):691-693.

[12] Campbell-Voytal K, Daly JM, Nagykaldi ZJ, et al. Team science approach to developing consensus on research good practices for practice-based research networks: a case study. Clin Transl Sci. 2015; 8(6):632-637.

[13] Goodyear-Smith F, Bazemore A, Coffman M, et al. Primary care research priorities in low-and middle-income countries. Ann Fam Med. 2019; 17(1):31-35.

[14] Wang HY, Xu YL, Yan XM, et al. Evaluation research on the influence of papers written by young and middle-aged authors in the field of general practice in China from 2013 to 2017. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2019; 22(34):4157-4165. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2019.00.782.

[15] Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8:19-32.

[16] Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRIS-MA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169:467-473.

[17] Wang Y, Xu ZJ, Li L, et al. The development of practice-based research networks in North America in early stage: a literature review from historical perspective. Chin Gen Pract. 2021; 24(28):3525-3542. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.291.

[18] Beasley JW, Starfield B, Van Weel C, et al. Global health and primary care research. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007; 20(6):518-526. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2007.06.070172.

[19] Hummers-Pradier E, Beyer M, Chevallier P, et al. Scope, research needs, and applicable methods of general practice research: Summary translation of “The European General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care Research Agenda ”. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2022; 25(9):1027-1039.

[20] Shi XX, Yu DH, Wang ZX, et al. Analysis of academic papers from community health centers and health service centers in China, 2017-2018. (Chinese). Chin J Gen Pract. 2019; 17(2):167-170. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.000630.

[21] Jin GH, Zhao YL, Shao S, et al. Survey on the current status of general practitioners’ research work. (Chinese). Continuing Medical Education. 2017; 31(12):5-6.

[22] Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, State Council. Outline of the Healthy China 2030 plan [Internet]. 2016 Oct 25 [cited 2022 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-10/25/content_5124174.htm.

[23] State Council Health Reform Office, seven other departments. Guiding opinions on promoting family doctor contract services [Internet]. 2016 Jun 6 [cited 2022 Aug 7]. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-06/06/content_5079984.htm.

[24] Green LA. The weekly return as a practical instrument for data collection in office-based research. Fam Med. 1988; 20(3):182-184. doi: 10.1370/afm.1199.

[25] Phillips WR, Sturgiss E, Yang A, et al. Clinician use of primary care research reports. J Am Board Fam Med. 2021; 34(3):648-660.

[26] Zhao PP, Wang YT, Lin ZP, et al. Scale for service quality evaluation of rural family doctors: development, reliability and validity. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2021; 24(7):812-817. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2021.00.122.

[27] Liu CC, Gao HX, Zhang Y. Construction of competency index system for rural family doctors. (Chinese). Med Soc (Berkeley). 2021; 34(1):33 20-24.

[28] Kuang L, Li LN, Luo ZJ, et al. Development and validation of the Chinese version of Assessment Survey of Primary Care. (Chinese). Chin Gen Pract. 2021; 24(13):1643 1621-1628. doi: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2020.00.496.

[29] Shaneyfelt T. Pyramids are guides not rules: the evolution of the evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med. 2016; 21(4):121-122. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110498.

[30] Speich B, Schur N, Gryaznov D, et al. Resource use, costs, and approval times for planning and preparing a randomized clinical trial before and after the implementation of the new Swiss human research legislation. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210669.