CRISP reporting to improve PC research

The first report of this worldwide project to assess the needs of the primary care community for how research is reported to help improve patient care and population health:

Phillips WR, Sturgiss E, Hunik, L, Glasziou P, olde Hartman T, Orkin A, Reeve J, Russell G, van Weel C. Improving the reporting of primary care research: An international survey of researchers. J Am Board Fam Med 2021. 34(1):12-21. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2021.01.200266

A Family Doctor by any other name

GPs are not FPs and the distinction is important for patient care, research, reporting and health policy. Read the new research that documents the important differences.

Researchers, reviewers, editors and journalists need to stop reporting these two groups of physicians as an aggregate “FP/GP” group. Blurring these distinctions obscures important differences between the groups.

GP-FP post largeThis recent study documents how big a problem we have with this sloppy reporting.

Diep AM, Thoppe HS, Yang A, Agnani AS, Phillips WR.  Accuracy of reporting primary care specialty status in medical research. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2019, 32(6): 941-943. DOI:

CONCLUSIONS. In key medical journals, most studies lump together GPs and FPs, masking differences between these distinct groups of physicians. Most research reports fail to explain how they classify PC clinicians. Research reports need to improve accuracy in studies of FPs and primary care in the US.