The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) checklist - the first research reporting guideline made by and for primary care.

sion="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> PY Australian Journal of Primary Health Aust. J.

Storylines of family medicine V: ways of thinking-honing the therapeutic self.

is a 12-part series of thematically linked essays with accompanying illustrations that explore the many dimensions of family medicine, as interpreted by individual family physicians and medical educators in the USA and elsewhere around the world. In 'V: ways of thinking-honing the therapeutic self', authors present the following sections: 'Reflective practice in action', 'The doctor as drug-Balint groups', 'Cultivating compassion', 'Towards a humanistic approach to doctoring', 'Intimacy in family medicine', 'The many faces of suffering', 'Transcending suffering' and 'The power of listening to stories.' May readers feel a deeper sense of their own therapeutic agency by reflecting on these essays.

Pilot test of Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP).

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports.

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC.

Primary Care Research: Looking Back and Moving Forward With Reflections on NAPCRG's First 50 Years.

NAPCRG celebrated 50 years of leadership and service at its 2022 meeting. A varied team of primary care investigators, clinicians, learners, patients, and community members reflected on the organization's past, present, and future. Started in 1972 by a small group of general practice researchers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, NAPCRG has evolved into an international, interprofessional, interdisciplinary, and intergenerational group devoted to improving health and health care through primary care research.

A pilot clinical skills coaching program to reimagine remediation: a cohort study.

Background New approaches are needed to improve and destigmatize remediation in undergraduate medical education (UME).  The COVID-19 pandemic magnified the need to support struggling learners to ensure competency and readiness for graduate medical education (GME).  Clinical skills (CS) coaching is an underutilized approach that may mitigate the stigma of remedial learning.

A Comprehensive Clinical Model of Suffering.

Suffering is often a part of the illness experience, and relieving it is a fundamental obligation of medicine. Distress, injury, disease, and loss generate suffering when they threaten meaning in the patient's personal narrative. Family physicians have exceptional opportunities and responsibilities to manage suffering through long-term continuity relationships, demonstrating empathy, and building trust over time and across problems.

Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study.

Objective: Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research.

Interprofessional Primary Care Course Impact on Knowledge, Attitudes, and Careers.

Background And Objectives: Our innovative, highly rated, interprofessional Primary Care Course (PCC) engaged learners in dentistry, medicine, nursing, physician assistants, pharmacy, public health, and social work. PCC used a low-resource, flexible classroom format, earned 99% high student ratings, and increased PC career plans in 56% of students. This study assessed changes in PC knowledge and attitudes and tracked PC career outcomes over 5 years.

Clinician Use of Primary Care Research Reports.

Purpose: To assess how primary care practitioners use reports of general health care (GHC) and primary care (PC) research and how well reports deliver what they need to inform clinical practice.

Methods: International, interprofessional online survey, 2019, of primary care clinicians who see patients at least half time. Respondents used frequency scales to report how often they access both GHC and PC research and how frequently reports meet needs.

Mapping the literature on primary care research reporting: a scoping review.

Background: Despite broad efforts to improve the reporting of biomedical research, no reporting guideline exists for primary care (PC) research. Little is known about current reporting practices or how well reports meet the needs of varied users in PC.

Objective: To map the published literature on PC research reporting: quality, strengths and weaknesses, recommendations and efforts to improve reporting.

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: An International Survey of Researchers.

Purpose: To assess opportunities to improve reporting of primary care (PC) research to better meet the needs of its varied users.

Methods: International, interprofessional online survey of PC researchers and users, 2018 to 2019. Respondents used Likert scales to rate frequency of difficulties in interpreting, synthesizing, and applying PC research reports.

General Practitioners in US Medical Practice Compared With Family Physicians.

Purpose: General practitioners (GPs) are part of the US physician workforce, but little is known about who they are, what they do, and how they differ from family physicians (FPs). We describe self-identified GPs and compare them with board-certified FPs.

Methods: Analysis of data on 102,604 Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathy physicians in direct patient care in the United States in 2016, who identify themselves as GPs or FPs.

Accuracy of Reporting Primary Care Specialty Status in Medical Research.

Introduction: Family physicians (FPs) are specialty trained and certified and provide most primary care (PC) services in the United States. General practitioners (GPs), a separate group without specialty PC training, are commonly confused with FPs despite differences in demographic characteristics, professional qualifications, and clinical services. Our study documents how often research in major medical journals distinguishes between these 2 groups or combines GPs and FPs together.

How can we change medical students' perceptions of a career in family medicine? Marketing or substance?

Family Medicine (FM) is the care of unselected patients with undifferentiated problems in the settings where people need care in our communities. It is intellectually challenging, providing breadth and depth unparalleled in other areas of medical practice. In one survey only 19% of Israeli students reported being interested in FM.