Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Introduction:

The promotion of research in the context of Primary Health Care remains a challenge worldwide. This study aims to identify the most relevant research barriers perceived by primary health care professionals in Portugal. We also examine whether these perceived barriers vary by geographical area, professional group, workplace, and participants’ interest and experience in research.

Methods:

Utilizing a cross-sectional design, we conducted an online survey to collect quantitative data. This study builds upon a prior qualitative study, which identified key barriers to research in this context. Eligible participants were primary healthcare professionals working in Portugal who consented to participate. Descriptive analyses and group comparisons using parametric and non-parametric tests were conducted. The study was reported according to the STROBE checklist.

Results:

A total of 1027 Portuguese primary care professionals participated in the study, the majority being female (79%) with an average age of 42 years. Most participants were physicians (49%) or nurses (37%), and over half worked in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region (52%). A majority of participants (86%) consider that there are barriers to research. The main barriers identified were lack of time, limited institutional support, insufficient training and funding, as well as bureaucratic burden and lack of professional valorization. Perceived barriers varied according to professional group, workplace, and previous research experience and training.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that certain aspects may be unique to our country, underscoring the importance of tailoring strategies to address research barriers based on professional profiles and regional contexts. This highlights the need for local context evaluation and suggests that replicating the study in other countries could provide valuable insights for improving local policies. While this research offers a foundational understanding, further studies are necessary to refine these findings and assess their broader applicability. Policymakers should consider these results when designing interventions to foster a robust research culture in primary healthcare in Portugal. Additionally, these insights could serve as a model for strengthening research capacity in primary care internationally.

Keywords

research capacity building mixed methods primary care managerial epidemiology program evaluation

Introduction

Primary Care Services in Portugal

In Portugal, Primary Healthcare (PHC) serves as the entry point to the National Health Service (NHS) and forms the foundation of healthcare services.¹ When this study was conducted, PHC included three main types of health units. Family Health Units (USF) consist of small, fixed teams composed of a family doctor, a family nurse, and a technical assistant, each responsible for an assigned list of patients.¹ USFs are further classified as USF-A and USF-B, based on the financial incentives they receive.¹ Personalized Healthcare Units (UCSP) organize professionals according to specific tasks, such as home visits, diabetes consultations, and maternal health care.¹

Complementing these units are Shared Assistance Resources Units (URAP), Continued Care Units (UCC), Palliative Care Units, and Public Health Units (USP).¹ These various structures were integrated into Health Center Clusters (ACeS), which collaborated to ensure continuous care and meet the healthcare needs of their respective geographical areas.¹ ACeS are, in turn, coordinated through Regional Health Administrations (ARS), organized by region.¹

Notably, in eight Portuguese municipalities, the healthcare system was organized differently, integrating primary and hospital care into Local Health Units (ULS), where both USFs and UCSPs were present. More recently, a national healthcare reform has extended this model, merging all ARSs into newly created ULS units. These new entities operate under a single executive board and aim to enhance coordination between different levels of care.^1,2

Research in PHC

Given the structure and community focus of PHC in Portugal, the potential for impactful, practice-based research is considerable. Healthcare research is essential for advancing clinical and academic excellence, supporting local contexts, and addressing population needs.^3,4 This is particularly evident in PHC,⁵ where professionals are uniquely positioned to promote continuity and integration of care, while coordinating with other specialties across the healthcare system. Additionally, PHC professionals frequently manage complex clinical situations, such as multimorbidity and polypharmacy, as well as social and organizational challenges.⁶ The proximity of PHC to the community not only facilitates more personalized care but also contributes to better health outcomes, including reductions in morbidity and mortality.^6,7 This reinforces the importance of practice-based research to improve health outcomes and support the delivery of high-quality care. Despite these advantages, Portugal still faces significant challenges in developing research capacity within PHC.⁸ Strengthening this capacity is not only intrinsically valuable but is also recognized internationally as essential for optimizing care delivery, driving innovation, and supporting quality improvement^9,10 Furthermore, the need to promote research in PHC is evident in recommendations for supporting clinical trials at this level and leveraging electronic health records and big data analysis to enhance healthcare delivery.^11,12

Barriers to PHC Research

Despite the recognized importance of research in PHC, multiple barriers have been well-documented.³ These can be organized into four categories: time (lack of time for research, other activities taking priority and turnover of professionals); resources and infrastructure (lack of funding and administrative support); knowledge and skills (lack of research skills and training opportunities) and coordination and collaboration (lack of support from managers and colleagues, as well as a sense of isolation).^13,14

Although lack of time remains the primary barrier, funding arrangements also present substantial challenges. Current financial structures make it difficult to allocate time for research or non-clinical tasks, as these are often not remunerated.¹⁵ It is also not clear if physicians and patients understand the need to conduct research in PHC. Many general practitioners consider that a “GP mindset” exists, which ascribes higher authority to clinical experience than research evidence, especially in cases of divergence. Active enquiry is not common behavior in these settings. Further, and transversely to different areas of the globe, many health professionals do not feel encouraged to develop research.^16,17

In the Portuguese context, the factors influencing these barriers—such as professional category, geographic region, work setting, or previous research experience—remain poorly understood.⁵ This knowledge is crucial, as it can facilitate the development of targeted strategies to support and enhance research activities within PHC settings.^18,19 Through an observational study, we aim to explore how these variables relate to the obstacles faced by professionals in different contexts. By doing so, we hope to inform more effective resource allocation, guide health policy, and ultimately contribute to strengthening PHC research in Portugal.

Objectives

This study aims to identify the most relevant research barriers perceived by primary health care professionals. Additionally, we examine whether these perceived barriers vary by geographical area, professional group, workplace, and participants’ interest and experience in research.

Methods

This study adheres to the STROBE guidelines for reporting observational studies.²⁰

Study Design and Setting

We conducted an observational, cross-sectional and analytical study using online surveys.

This quantitative study builds upon a previous qualitative study in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with family physicians involved in research to identify and explore the existing barriers to research in Portuguese PHC. The main themes identified in the analysis were related to time, professional valorization, funding, infrastructure, management and institutions, ethics committees and study subjects.⁵

Using the information gathered in the qualitative study, a questionnaire was designed and applied in this quantitative study.

Population

Our study targeted all healthcare professionals working in primary care in Portugal, including physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and technicians (eg, speech therapists, radiologists, physiotherapists, nutritionists, and oral health specialists). Professionals in secondary healthcare were excluded from the study. Additionally, administrative staff and support personnel were not included, as their roles typically do not involve research activities.

Sampling

To ensure robust and representative data, the sampling strategy aimed to achieve a minimum of 200 valid responses per professional category and per geographical region. Sample size calculations assumed a proportion of 50% (the most conservative scenario), with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of ±6.5% or less. Therefore, a sample of 200 participants per stratum (professional group or region) would yield estimates with sufficient precision for analysis.

The professional categories considered were: (1) Family Medicine physicians, (2) Public Health physicians, (3) nurses, (4) psychologists, and (5) diagnostic and health technicians. The sampling framework also accounted for Portugal’s main health administrative regions: North, Center, Lisbon and Tagus Valley, Alentejo, Algarve, Azores, and Madeira.

Data Collection

An online questionnaire was administered via Google Forms® between January and July 2023. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix I. The questionnaire collected sociodemographic data, information about research experience, and affiliations with research groups, Ethics Committees, or universities. Then, the participants were requested to identify barriers to conducting research in PHC that they consider most relevant. Each question required participants to select exactly 3 from a set of predefined options (based on the barriers identified in the previous qualitative study). Additionally, participants were asked to select, also from a set of predefined options, which aspects of each obstacle they considered problematic.

The questionnaires were designed with mandatory responses, ensuring no missing data.

Since the questionnaire was not previously validated, we conducted a pre-test using a convenience sample of 24 PHC professionals from different professional categories and age groups. This aimed to ensure diverse perspectives on question understanding, acceptability, and interpretation. The responses were analyzed qualitatively, allowing for refinement of the questionnaire before launch.

We then requested collaboration from the Executive Directors of Health Center Clusters (in mainland and the autonomous regions) and three national professional associations: the Portuguese Association of General and Family Medicine, the Association of Primary Care Nurses, and the National Association of Public Health Physicians. The questionnaire was distributed to PHC health professionals via email, social networks, and other institutional channels.

Data Analysis

We used IBM^® SPSS^® Statistics 23 to analyze the data, conduct descriptive statistics and comparative analyses of barriers to research conducting, based on variables such as professional group, geographic region, workplace, research training, interest, previous research experience, and affiliations with a research group, Ethics Committee, or university.

A descriptive statistical analysis was performed for all variables. Group comparisons were conducted using parametric and non-parametric tests, as appropriate. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test when expected frequencies were low. The choice of statistical tests was based on data distribution and applicability criteria

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by the relevant regional Ethics Committees.

The questionnaire included a consent section for participants to confirm their willingness to join the study (Appendix I).

Results

The sample is composed of 1027 participants, 79% of whom are female, with an average age of 42 (ranging from 23 to 70). Approximately half are physicians (49%; n = 507), mostly in Family Medicine, while more than a third are nurses (37%; n = 377). Most participants work in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region (52%; n = 533). Around half of the participants work in a Family Health Unit (USF), with 206 in USF-A and 322 in USF-B.

The sociodemographic characterization of participants can be observed in more detail in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characterization of Participants.

Characteristics		Minimum	Maximum	Medium
Age		23	70	42.32
Characteristics		N		%
Age
<35		294		28.7
36-45		365		35.7
46-55		243		23.7
56-70		122		11.9
Gender
Male		215		20.9
Female		809		78.8
Workplace
UCSP		169		16.5
URAP		67		6.5
UCC		113		11.0
Family unit A		206		20.1
Family unit B		322		31.4
Public health unit		89		8.7
Private practice		3		0.3
ARS Institution		6		0.6
ACeS Institution		34		3.3
ULS		7		0.7
Palliative care unit		3		0.3
Others		8		0.8
Career	N (%)	Specialty	N	%
Doctor	507 (49.4)	Family medicine	464	91.5
		Public health	41	8.1
		Endocrinology	1	0.2
		Stomatology	1	0.2
Nurse	377 (36.7)	Specialist	213	20.7
		Non-specialist	152	14.8
		Manager	13	1.3
Technical assistant	30 (2.9)
Diagnostics and therapeutic technicians	106 (10.3)
Others	7 (0.7)
Region
North		227		22.1
Center		176		17.1
Lisbon and the Tagus Valley		533		51.9
Alentejo		14		1.4
Algarve		67		6.5
Azores		5		0.5
Madeira		5		0.5

Barriers to Research

When asked whether they perceived barriers to conducting research in PHC, 881 participants (86%) responded affirmatively, indicating that they believe such barriers currently exist.

Participants were then asked to identify the barriers they considered most significant, selecting the three they viewed as most important. Figure 1 presents the overall prevalence of barriers to research in PHC.

Figure 1.

Overall prevalence of barriers to research in PHC.

The main barriers identified were:

Time constraints: 73% of respondents cited lack of time as a significant barrier to conducting research. When asked which aspects regarding time they considered it limiting, most professionals indicated increased clinical workload (75%) and lack of protected time for research activities (81%).

Funding issues: 38% of participants reported funding as a major obstacle, whereas 80% of participants considered that there is a lack of funding for research in PHC and 42% a lack of funding for training in research methods.

Ethics committees (EC): 19% highlighted difficulties related to the EC. Within this topic, response time was the main challenge (57%) addressed. Another obstacle was the existence of multiple EC without uniform procedures concerning study appraisal (31%). Additional concerns included inconsistent criteria across committees and limited guidance for researchers.

Management and bureaucracy: 24% and 46% respectively pointed out management support and bureaucratic load as barriers. When asked which specific aspects were problematic, at least half of the professionals feel that procedures are complicated by multiple hierarchical layers and that managers have little awareness of research.

Training: 32% identified training as a hindrance to research activities. 62% of the participants feel that there is a lack of training offers and 52% consider that existing offers are difficult to access.

Infrastructure: This barrier was not highly voted overall, but when considered individually, 54% of professionals indicated a lack of support structures for researchers, such as access to project management services or statistical support. 56% identified a shortage of human resources in PHC research, 65% a lack of research networks and 48% a lack of experienced mentors.

Professional valorization and career: Within this topic, two aspects were flagged by more than half of the participants: lack of professional valorization of research activities (59%) and research not being a preponderant factor to career progression (54%).

Regional Differences

In analyzing the results for this section, we excluded regions with a low sample size, such as autonomous regions and Alentejo. Participants from the central region of Portugal perceived fewer barriers to research, whereas those from Lisbon and Tagus Valley reported encountering more obstacles. Figure 2 shows the regional differences in barriers to research.

Figure 2.

Regional differences in barriers to research.

While no regional differences were observed in the identification of the main barriers, distinct regional patterns emerged when participants were asked to specify aspects within each barrier.

North: 189 respondents, with 154 (73%) highlighting time constraints as a primary barrier. Other significant barriers included funding (77 respondents) and bureaucratic load (102 respondents).

Center: 146 respondents, with significant mentions of time constraints (127 respondents) and funding issues (72 respondents).

Participants from Lisbon and Tagus Valley particularly feel that there is a lack of research networks compared to other regions (P = .024) and a lack of experienced mentors (P = .044).

Participants from Center region seem to consider that there is political interference in research and management more the other regions (P = .003)

Context

Barriers to research varied across different practice settings. Participants from USF-B were the most sensitive to these barriers, followed by those from USF-A and UCSP, while URAP participants were the least sensitive (P < .001).

When identifying specific barriers, USF-B professionals were more concerned with time constraints and training but less concerned with management, whereas URAP participants highlighted management issues as a greater concern (P < .001). Additionally, UCC professionals were less worried about time constraints, while USP participants were less concerned with training (P < .001).

Increased clinical workload and lack of protected time were most frequently cited by USF-B participants, followed by those from USF-A (P < .001 and P = .005). In contrast, URAP participants reported insufficient professional valorization of research as a key barrier (P = .004).

Professional Group Analysis

When asked about the presence of barriers to research, physicians were the group that most frequently identified obstacles, followed by nurses (P < .001).

Regarding the specific barriers, physicians were more likely than other professionals to cite time constraints, ethics committee (EC) requirements, bureaucratic load/logistics (P < .001), and training (P = .009), while they were less likely to mention management-related barriers (P < .001). In contrast, diagnostic and therapeutic technicians highlighted management more frequently. Technical assistants reported time constraints and bureaucratic load/logistics less often than other groups, while diagnostic and therapeutic technicians mentioned EC requirements and training less frequently.

Nurses, followed by diagnostic and therapeutic technicians, more often pointed to the lack of professional valorization of research (P < .001). Physicians emphasized that research does not contribute to career progression (P = .009) and were also more likely to identify infrastructure-related barriers (P < .001), managers’ lack of awareness of research (P = .004), increased clinical workload, and lack of protected time as significant issues.

A sub-analysis revealed that specialist doctors and nurses perceived barriers more strongly than their non-specialist counterparts (P < .001). Specialist doctors were more likely than residents to cite time constraints, management issues, bureaucratic load/logistics, lack of support structures, and insufficient human resources as barriers (P < .001). Meanwhile, residents more frequently identified the lack of research networks, experienced mentors (P < .001), and EC requirements as predominant barriers (P < .001).

Similarly, specialist nurses were more likely than non-specialists to report time constraints, management issues, and EC requirements as barriers (P < .001), as well as the lack of support structures, research networks, and mentors (P < .001). However, bureaucratic load/logistics was a more prominent concern among non-specialist nurses (P < .001).

Less experienced professionals were more likely to perceive training as a barrier (P = .004 and P = .028), as well as the lack of professional valorization of research (P < .001). Conversely, more experienced participants more frequently cited managers’ lack of awareness of research (P = .002 and P = .004), lack of protected time, and increased clinical workload (P < .001) as significant barriers.

Interest, Experience and Training in Research

Participants with interest, training, or experience in research, as well as those affiliated with research-related institutions (eg, research groups, ethics committees, universities, and other institutions), were more likely to perceive barriers (P < .001). Time was more frequently perceived as a barrier by those with prior research experience compared to those without (P < .001). Management was more frequently perceived as a barrier by participants with an interest in research compared to those without (P = .001). Funding was more often identified as a barrier among those with research interests or who were members of research groups or ethics committees. Training was more frequently perceived as a barrier among participants with less interest, training, or experience in research.

Discussion

Our study, based on 1027 responses, revealed significant barriers to research in PHC in Portugal across various regions, professional groups, and contexts. The most prominent barriers identified were time constraints (73%), bureaucratic challenges (46%), funding and training shortages (38% and 32%), and a lack of management support (24%). Time limitations, largely driven by increased workloads (76%) and a lack of protected time for research (81%), emerged as the most significant challenge across all professional groups and regions. Additionally, over 54% highlighted deficiencies in infrastructure and human resources dedicated to PHC research. More than half also referred to the long EC response time, the presence of multiple hierarchical layers and lack of management awareness.

It is widely agreed that there are barriers to research in PHC (86%) and that there is lack of funding for research in PHC (80%). These findings demonstrate systemic challenges that hinder the development of a strong research culture in PHC settings, and align with the broader literature on research challenges in PHC, both within Portugal and globally.^19,21
-23

Time constraints consistently emerge as a critical obstacle, as the clinical workloads of PHC professionals often leave little room for research activities. While other specialties have flexibility in managing work schedules, the high number of patients in PHC, extended consultation hours, and workforce shortages make it difficult to allocate time for research.⁵

Similar studies have shown that insufficient funding is another widespread issue in PHC research internationally, as hospital-based research and academic settings tend to receive more robust financial support.²⁴

The difficulties associated with navigating ethics committees and bureaucratic processes observed in this study are also seen in other countries.²⁵ For instance, researchers report similar frustrations with slow approval processes, inconsistent criteria and administrative burdens. However, countries with more integrated health systems have been able to mitigate these challenges by fostering stronger ties between research bodies and clinical settings, providing a potential model for Portugal to consider.²⁶

Addressing the barriers to research in PHC requires a multi-faceted approach.

First, structural reforms are needed to protect research time for healthcare professionals, ensuring that they can balance clinical duties with research activities. This could include formalized policies granting dedicated research hours, integrating research as part of regular job responsibilities, or establishing collaborative models where research activities are seamlessly embedded into routine practice.

Second, increasing funding opportunities specifically targeted at PHC research and dedicated support infrastructures is essential. Greater investment in PHC research would not only support innovation and quality improvement but also contribute to building a stronger research culture within the field. Furthermore, increasing the presence of PHC experts on research grant panels can also contribute to a more balanced evaluation process and expand funding opportunities for research directly addressing PHC needs.²²

Professionals and institutions must prioritize exploring and diversifying funding sources instead of relying solely on NHS or government allocations. Developing research infrastructures with multidisciplinary teams, including experts dedicated to identifying and managing external funding opportunities, is crucial for sustaining and advancing research efforts. There is also a need for more accessible and comprehensive research training, particularly for non-physician healthcare professionals like nurses and technicians, who play a critical role in PHC but often face additional barriers to research engagement. Regionally tailored training programs, combined with structured mentorship initiatives, could help bridge this gap and foster a more inclusive and multidisciplinary research environment.

Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs), a well-established model in several countries, can serve as valuable platforms for promoting resource sharing, professional and institutional collaboration, and collective learning. Additionally, they can support fundraising, mentorship, training, and other key aspects such as participant recruitment. Their main advantage is their focus on clinical practice and addressing real-world problems at the point of care. However, in Portugal, they are still in an early stage of development.²⁷ Other infrastructures that can provide a similar supportive role include Research & Development (R&D) institutions funded by national agencies and Academic Clinical Centers.^28,29 These are already established and benefit from dedicated funding programs. However, as they are strongly connected to universities and hospitals, integrating and prioritizing the PHC perspective and its specific needs can be challenging.²⁸

Additionally, simplifying bureaucratic processes and improving management’s understanding of research could create a more supportive environment for PHC research. Establishing clear, simple, and uniform procedures for ethics reviews will make the processes more efficient, and reduce administrative burdens, which will be crucial in facilitating greater research output. A concrete example would be the possibility of protocol review by a single Ethics Committee in the case of multicentric studies, which is not currently the practice in Portugal.²³

Specialist physicians working at USF-B in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region, who have training and experience in research and are affiliated with research groups, academia, or Ethics Committees, represent the participant profile most affected by barriers. This may be explained by the institutional incentives and performance indicators in USF-B, which prioritize care delivery and do not include research metrics.³⁰ As a result, these professionals face greater pressure, leaving little room for research activities despite their background and interest. In contrast, residents, who are not yet responsible for managing patient lists or ensuring a full clinical workload, may have more opportunities to engage in research, as is included in their curricula.

USF-B professionals are particularly affected by barriers related to time and training rather than management. This can be attributed to USF-B’s organizational and payment model, which, while offering more autonomous management, also imposes stricter performance targets that directly influence part of their income.³⁰ Notably, research activities are not factored into these evaluations.

Physicians and nurses are probably the professionals with the most experience or interest in research, which may explain why they report more obstacles. On the other hand, technical assistant working at URAP in the Center region, who have no training nor experience in research, represent the participant profile least affected by barriers. This could be explained by the fact that they may not perceive or encounter the same challenges as professionals actively involved in research.

Different professional profiles may benefit from distinct incentives to engage in research. For example, while physicians are likely to require more time and reduced bureaucracy, nurses and technicians may value greater professional recognition. These differences are important to address because, ideally, research teams in PHC should be multidisciplinary. Therefore, it is essential to understand and support the specific needs of each professional group. Moreover, research is likely valued during the training period of physicians and nurses, making this a more favorable stage for engaging in research activities. Less experienced professionals may benefit more from training and professional recognition, while more experienced ones seek greater managerial support, reduced bureaucracy, and dedicated time for research.

It may be worth further exploring the reasons behind regional differences in barriers, such as why conducting research is more challenging in Lisbon and the Tagus Valley. This study offers some potential clues, including the lack of mentors and networks in Lisbon and Tagus Valley and political interference in the Center region. These regional nuances may be unique to Portugal’s healthcare structure and governance but can also provide clues for realities in other contexts. These findings suggest that strategies to address research barriers must be tailored to specific professional profiles and regional contexts rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.

While our study provides valuable insights into the barriers to PHC research in Portugal, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the sample is not fully representative of all regions and professional categories, with limited responses from areas like Alentejo and the autonomous regions. This uneven geographic distribution may have influenced the regional findings and limited the generalizability of the results. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study means that it captures a snapshot of perceptions at a single point in time, which may not fully reflect changes in research support or barriers that occur over time. Longitudinal studies could provide a more dynamic understanding of how these barriers evolve. Another limitation is the use of a questionnaire with predefined answers, which did not allow participants to provide open-ended responses. This constraint may have restricted their ability to express nuanced perspectives or highlight barriers not covered by the available options.

The fact that the sample was non-randomized introduces a potential selection bias, as participants with a greater interest in research may have been more motivated to respond to the questionnaire. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported data may introduce response bias, as participants could have emphasized certain barriers based on subjective perceptions rather than objective challenges. However, the large sample size and diverse professional representation provide a broad overview of the current state of PHC research in Portugal.

Conclusion

This study identified the research barriers perceived as most relevant by PHC professionals. These barriers vary primarily according to professional context, role, experience, training, geographical area, workplace, and the participants’ interest and involvement in research. Understanding these obstacles enables stakeholders to develop targeted interventions that can enhance research capacity, strengthen evidence-based practices, and foster a culture of inquiry within the healthcare system.

Additionally, there is a need to integrate research training into the curricula of non-medical healthcare professionals working in PHC, with pre- and post-graduate education being optimal times to engage professionals in research. Reducing the bureaucratic load associated with research and creating institutional incentives for more experienced professionals are also essential steps to promote research activity. Furthermore, integrating PBRNs and mentorship programs could offer valuable support and guidance for healthcare professionals looking to engage in research, further enhancing the overall research culture in PHC.

Policy Implications

Effective policy interventions should focus on:

Institutional support: Strengthening support structures within healthcare institutions.

Funding: Increasing research funding and simplifying grant application processes.

Training and development: Enhancing access to research training programs and

Professional valorization: Recognizing and rewarding research efforts in career progression frameworks.

Participation in research governance: Increasing the involvement of primary healthcare professionals in research-related institutions and decision-making processes.

Ethics procedures: Simplifying documentation and accelerating procedures related to obtaining ethical approval.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319251346695 – Supplemental material for Barriers to Research in Primary Health Care in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319251346695 for Barriers to Research in Primary Health Care in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Study by Margarida Gil Conde, Maria Beatriz Morgado, Carolina Penedo, Francisco Freitas Barcelos, Rubina Correia, Sandra Diniz Amaral, Cristina Ribeiro and Paulo Jorge Nicola in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319251346695 – Supplemental material for Barriers to Research in Primary Health Care in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-jpc-10.1177_21501319251346695 for Barriers to Research in Primary Health Care in Portugal: A Cross-Sectional Study by Margarida Gil Conde, Maria Beatriz Morgado, Carolina Penedo, Francisco Freitas Barcelos, Rubina Correia, Sandra Diniz Amaral, Cristina Ribeiro and Paulo Jorge Nicola in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants and the organizations that facilitated the dissemination of the survey.

ORCID iDs

Margarida Gil Conde

Sandra Diniz Amaral

Ethical Considerations

The study was approved by five regional Research and Ethics Committees, as well as the regional healthcare administrations in Portugal, where it was conducted.

Consent to Participate

Participants were provided with data management information before starting the survey, and consent was required to proceed.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available in the supplementary files. Raw data can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author for a period of 5 years from the date of publication.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Biscaia

Heleno

LCV

. A Reforma dos Cuidados de Saúde Primários em Portugal: Portuguesa, moderna e inovadora. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(3):701-712. doi:10.1590/1413-81232017223.33152016

Portugal.gov. Arranca Nova Fase Da Organização Do Serviço Nacional de Saúde. Portugal.gov; 2024.

Ponka

Coffman

Fraser-Barclay

, et al. Fostering global primary care research: a capacity-building approach. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(7):1-7. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002470

Solbach-Sabbach

Adar

Alperin

Karkabi

Levkovich

Engaging family medicine residents in research training: an innovative research skills program in Israel. Educ Health. 2019;32(2):79-83. doi:10.4103/efh.EfH_36_18

Conde

Rodrigues

Ramos

, et al. Barriers to research in family medicine—interviews with Portuguese family physician researchers. Fam Pract. 2024;41(2):168-174. doi:10.1093/FAMPRA/CMAD126

Drinkwater

Wildman

Moffatt

Social prescribing. BMJ. 2019;364:1-5. doi:10.1136/bmj.l1285

Howe

Kidd

Challenges for family medicine research: a global perspective. Fam Pract. 2018;36(2):99-101. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmy044

Morgado

Rodrigues

Carmona Ramos

Rente

Nicola

Gil Conde

Strategies for the promotion of primary health care research in Portugal: a qualitative study. Acta Med Port. 2024;37(2):110-118. doi:10.20344/AMP.19514

Collins

The EGPRN Research Strategy for general practice in Europe. Eur J Gen Pract. 2022;28(1):136-141. doi:10.1080/13814788.2022.2080815

10.

Morgado

Penedo

Correia

Amaral

Nicola

Gil Conde

Strategies and factors to promote research in primary care in Portugal: a cross-sectional study. Acta Med Port. 2025;38(3):137-147. doi:10.20344/AMP.22171

11.

APIFARMA. Ensaios clínicos + saúde + sustentabilidade em portugal. APIFARMA; 2023.

12.

Ricoca Peixoto

de Sousa Santos

Souto

, et al. How to improve access to data from epidemic surveillance and electronic health records in order to advance research in Portugal. Acta Med Port. 2022;35(11):786-788. doi:10.20344/AMP.18381

13.

Borkowski

McKinstry

Cotchett

Williams

Haines

Research culture in allied health: a systematic review. Aust J Prim Health. 2016;22(4):294-303. doi:10.1071/PY15122

14.

Pager

Holden

Golenko

Motivators, enablers, and barriers to building allied health research capacity. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2012;5:53. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S27638

15.

Askew

Clavarino

Glasziou

Del Mar

CB.

General practice research: attitudes and involvement of Queensland general practitioners. Med J Aust. 2002;177(2):74-77. doi:10.5694/J.1326-5377.2002.TB04670.X

16.

McIntyre

Brun

Cameron

Researcher development program of the primary health care research, evaluation and development strategy. Aust J Prim Health. 2011;17(1):114-121. doi:10.1071/PY10049

17.

D’arrietta

Vangaveti

Crowe

Malau-Aduli

BS.

Rethinking health professionals’ motivation to do research: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022;15:185. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S337172

18.

Huas

Petek

Diaz

Mu~Noz-Perez

Torzsa

Collins

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. doi:10.1080/13814788.2018.1546282

19.

Bonfim

Belotti

de Almeida

, et al. Challenges and strategies for conducting research in primary health care practice: an integrative review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023;23(1):1380. doi:10.1186/S12913-023-10382-1

20.

STROBE. Checklists – STROBE [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2025 Feb 6]. https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists/

21.

Jahan

Maqbali

Siddiqui

Al Zadjali

NM.

Attitude and barrier towards research amongst health care professionals working in primary care service of Oman. J Health Educ Res Dev. 2015;3:144. doi:10.4172/2380-5439.1000144

22.

Rouyard

Yoda

Nakamura

, et al. Overcoming barriers to primary care research in Japan: a call to action. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2025;56:101523. doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2025.101523

23.

Gil Conde

Correia

Ramos

Santiago

. Ethical review processes as a barrier to research in primary healthcare: reflection on the submission of a multicenter study. Acta Med Port. 2024;37(6):415-418. doi:10.20344/AMP.21206

24.

Goodyear-Smith

Bazemore

Coffman

, et al. Primary care financing: a systematic assessment of research priorities in low- and middle-income countries. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(8):e001483. doi:10.1136/BMJGH-2019-001483

25.

Matheson

Huber

Rosenberg

Matheson

Ethics application protocols for multicentre clinical studies in Canada: a paediatric rheumatology experience. Paediatr Child Health. 2012;17(6):313. Accessed February 6, 2025. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3380748/

26.

Tully

Ninis

Booy

Viner

The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ. 2000;320(7243):1179. doi:10.1136/BMJ.320.7243.1179

27.

Dania

Nagykaldi

Haaranen

, et al. A review of 50-years of international literature on the internal environment of building practice-based research networks (PBRNs). J Am Board Fam Med. 2021;34(4):762-797. doi:10.3122/JABFM.2021.04.200595

28.

FCT. Atlas of Research Units. FCT; 2022.

29.

FCT. Clinical Academic Centers – FCT [Internet]. [cited 2025 Mar 31]. Available from: https://www.fct.pt/en/financiamento/programas-de-financiamento/instituicoes-de-id/centros-academicos-clinicos/

30.

Ministério Público Portugal. Regime jurídico de dedicação plena e organização e funcionamento das unidades de saúde familiar (versão actualizada), DL N.O 103/2023. 2023. Accessed March 31, 2025. https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=3718&tabela=leis&so_miolo=

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.09 MB