Patient and professional attitudes towards research in general practice: the RepR qualitative study

BMC Primary Care

Table 3 Subthemes subsumed in the five main themes, according to the four participant categories

	General practitioners	Patients	Academic GPs	Other academics
Specificity	Specific population
	Natural environment
	Screening and prevention
	Patient-physician communication	Patient-physician communication	Diversified research methods	Diversified research methods
Relevance	Health care improvement
	Patient compliance	Patient compliance	Health care cost minimization
	Health care cost minimization
Recognition	GPs as investigators		GPs as investigators	Publications
	Patients as active collaborators		Publications
Pitfalls	GPs misused by pharmaceutical industries
	Perceived rivalries in the university
	GPs just collecting data	GPs just collecting data	University corporatism
	Dehumanisation of practice	Dehumanisation of practice
Feasibility	Access to a diversified population
	Typical medical researcher as a “laboratory worker”
	Lack of time
	Access to a diversified population
	Fee for service system	Fee for service system	Fee for service system
	Isolation of practice		Isolation of practice

Bold characters denote common subthemes between the four participant categories.
Normal characters denote specific subthemes related to professional issues.
Italics denote specific subthemes related to technical issues.

ISSN: 2731-4553