Scoping review identifies key research capacity building strategies for family physicians, highlighting multifaceted approaches to overcome practice barriers.
INTRODUCTION: 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. AIM: This scoping review identifies and synthesises strategies that strengthen family physicians' research capacity in PC. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. DISCUSSION: 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Conde et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: