Why research in family medicine? A superfluous question

The ultimate answer to the question, "Why research in family medicine?" is to provide better care for our patients. Through research we want to improve quality of primary care by improving our understanding and practice of it. This research will inevitably be specific for family medicine as family medicine is a specific discipline. In this article we first explore what makes family medicine a specific discipline. In a second part we present a framework to grasp the various research questions that must be answered to achieve the complex and multifaceted goal of improving quality of care. Family medicine is a specific discipline for 3 reasons: it has a unique epidemiology, the context of care is important, and it has a strong link and responsibility to the community. Quality of care is a complex and multidimensional concept that raises diverse research questions. We propose to map these questions within a framework defined by the 3 dimensions of the Donabedian triangle--structure, process, and outcome-and within each of these dimensions by 5 foci-basic knowledge, diagnostic and therapeutic problem solving, practice implementation, policy context, and education. This framework may help to make the various research questions operational and to point out the gaps in our research. The questions and answers should be relevant to daily practice and comprise all domains of family medicine so that eventually most of our daily actions in practice will be underpinned with medical, contextual, and policy evidence and contribute to the improvement of the quality of care.     

PubMed perspective of family medicine research: where does it stand?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain a view of family medicine research by analyzing PubMed citations from 1960-2003. METHOD: Family practice (FP) citations in PubMed from 1960 to 2003 were downloaded in MEDLINE format. This was written into relation database using 'PubMed Grabber/Analyzer' software developed at University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. Search Query Language (SQL) and online PubMed queries were used for further analysis. RESULTS: There were 50288 FP citations from 80 countries. Of these, 33712 (67%) citations were from 15 FP journals. United Kingdom (18760), United States (13584), Australia (3262), Canada (1848), Germany-west (1340) were the five countries which had the most citations and 22 countries had less than 5 citations. Van Weel C (118), Geyman JP (116), Olesen F (87), Jones R (83) and Knottnerus JA (82) were numerically, the top five authors. Only 921 authors had more than 10 citations and the vast majority of authors had only one citation. Letters (5121), review (2715), editorial (2259), randomized controlled trials-RCT (1585) and Meta-analysis (44) were the top publication types. 40 citations found under 'qualitative research'. Discussion. The relatively few PubMed FP citations (50288) are by a small number of academics in developed countries. Citations showed an upsurge from the mid 1980s to the late 1990's but reached a plateau in the new millennium. Compared to PubMed citations from 1960-2003 in other specialties such as 2737655 for public health, 1151194 for cardiology & cardiovascular diseases and 318538 for medical informatics, the 50288 FP citations were paltry. Paucity of RCT (1585) and meta-analysis (44) was noted. The low 'qualitative research' citations (44) could have been due to the late introduction of the MeSH concept in 2003. CONCLUSIONS: Priority should be given to increase FP research and also to ensure the indexing of FP journals that are not currently indexed in PubMed. Efforts to increase citations in Medline may not give the desired results because of low priority given primary care specialties such as family medicine in the USA. Alternative solution of a separate bibliographic database for FP similar to PsycInfo may be too costly.     

Predisease: when does it make sense?

Screening often leads to finding conditions that are not at the stage or level that would classify them as disease but, at the same time, are not at a stage or level at which people can be declared entirely disease free. These "in-between" states have sometimes been designated as "predisease." Examples include precancerous lesions, increased intraocular pressure ("preglaucoma"), prediabetes, and prehypertension. When the goal of preventing adverse health outcomes is kept in mind, this review poses the idea that "predisease" as a category on which to act makes sense only if the following 3 conditions are met. First, the people designated as having predisease must be far more likely to develop disease than those not so designated. Second, there must be a feasible intervention that, when targeted to people with predisease, effectively reduces the likelihood of developing disease. Third, the benefits of intervening on predisease must outweigh the harms in the population. A systematic review of screening guidelines (published in 2003-2010) for 4 sample conditions (cervical cancer, glaucoma, diabetes, and hypertension) is included to assess whether they address these issues, followed by a discussion of the framework questions as they pertain to each condition.     

Future of research in family medicine: where to from here?

Desired research outcomes in family medicine vary according to the developmental stage of the discipline and the context of practice. Several milestones in the evolution of family practice research worldwide have been achieved. Now family medicine researchers face the challenge of discovering how evidence-based primary health care can be delivered in a sustainable way to individuals within communities. To advance family medicine research, we must ensure that trainees have a positive research attitude, develop academic clinician-researchers, lobby for primary care research funding, support practitioners who wish to do research in their own practices, sustain practice-based research networks, and study important questions.     

Supplementation of L-carnitine in athletes: does it make sense?

Studies in athletes have shown that carnitine supplementation may foster exercise performance. As reported in the majority of studies, an increase in maximal oxygen consumption and a lowering of the respiratory quotient indicate that dietary carnitine has the potential to stimulate lipid metabolism. Treatment with L-carnitine also has been shown to induce a significant postexercise decrease in plasma lactate, which is formed and used continuously under fully aerobic conditions. Data from preliminary studies have indicated that L-carnitine supplementation can attenuate the deleterious effects of hypoxic training and speed up recovery from exercise stress. Recent data have indicated that L-carnitine plays a decisive role in the prevention of cellular damage and favorably affects recovery from exercise stress. Uptake of L-carnitine by blood cells may induce at least three mechanisms: 1) stimulation of hematopoiesis, 2) a dose-dependent inhibition of collagen-induced platelet aggregation, and 3) the prevention of programmed cell death in immune cells. As recently shown, carnitine has direct effects in regulation of gene expression (i.e., carnitine-acyltransferases) and may also exert effects via modulating intracellular fatty acid concentration. Thus there is evidence for a beneficial effect of L-carnitine supplementation in training, competition, and recovery from strenuous exercise and in regenerative athletics.     

Why does family homelessness occur? A case-control study.

We compared 49 homeless female-headed families with 81 housed female-headed families in Boston. Most housed families were living in public or private subsidized housing. In both groups the mothers were poor, currently single, had little work experience, and had been on welfare for long periods. Many of their children had serious developmental and emotional problems. Homeless mothers had more frequently been abused as children and battered as adults and their support networks were fragmented; the housed mothers had female relatives and extended family living nearby whom they saw often. The frequency of drug, alcohol, and serious psychiatric problems was greater among the homeless mothers. The homeless mothers may have been more vulnerable to the current housing shortage because they lacked support in time of need. This, in turn, may have been due to their history of family violence. Psychiatric disabilities may have been another contributing factor in the minority of homeless women. The notion that a "culture of poverty" accounts for homelessness was not supported by the data since the homeless were less likely to have grown up in families on welfare. The data suggest that solutions to family homelessness in the current housing market require an increase in the supply of decent affordable housing, income maintenance, and assistance from social welfare agencies focused on rebuilding supportive relationships.     

The 21st century: the age of family medicine research?

Family medicine has matured as an academic and scientific discipline with its own core concepts, knowledge, skills, and research domains. It has acquired much expertise in studying common illnesses; the integration of medical, psychological, social, and behavioral sciences; patient-centered care; and health services delivery. Many health care challenges in the 21st century will place a great demand on primary care, which can serve its purpose only if it is of high quality and evidence based. Family medicine research can contribute to many areas of primary care, ranging from the early diagnosis to equitable health care. Stakeholders, such as the World Health Organization, governments, and funding agencies, are becoming more supportive to family medicine research because they recognize its key importance in improving the quality of primary care and bridging the gap between biomedical research and clinical practice. Family medicine can play a leading role in shifting the paradigm of medical research from the laboratory to the person. The 21st century should be a golden age of family medicine research because the time is right for the discipline, the health care environment is most suitable, and stakeholders are supportive. Family medicine must prepare for it by building up its research track record and capacity.