This fine book is available now at our bookstore....
The Curious Family Doctor: Research by family doctors in Canada in the early years
by Dr. William A. Falk
162 pages; quality trade paperback (softcover); catalogue #01-0177; ISBN 1-55212-777-X; US$17.00, C$25.00, EUR16.30, £11.30
A history of of early research (pre 1975) by family doctors in family practice.
About the book About the author Table of Contents and Sample Excerpt Catalogue info
About the BookBefore there was a well-organized effort in Canada to encourage research by general practitioners, many individuals had the curiosity to do studies of their own work. This book is written to remind us of the work of the pioneers, many of whom are unknown in the year 2001.
"I believe the work you have done has been an outstanding contribution not only to the history of family medicine research, but also to the development of the discipline of family medicine nationally and internationally and I want to extend my appreciation for your efforts in this regard."
Peter D. Taylor, MA, CFRE
|
About the AuthorCurious = Eager to learn; inquisitive..."
This is the word chosen by Dr. Falk to describe his fellow family doctors who, like himself, had an interest in doing medical research based on their practices. Family doctors are uniquely situated to study disease in that they care for patients of all ages, often for all members of a family or an extended family, for all conditions, from the onset of symptoms to their resolution. |
![]() |
When a question is posed, a hypothesis stated or a
project started, it is with the assumption that there is an
answer somewhere. Research is a process of
communication, to find the answer and to report it in a form
which can be understood and put to work to benefit our
patients or the community at large. Often the findings of the
day are proven to be wrong when further research produces
different and better answers.
Communication, then as now, was vital to the
conduct of research. Using and contributing to the literature
was recognized as a basic need. Personal interaction,
whether by meetings or through the mail, was necessary to
coordinate and critique activities. In a large country, such as
Canada, face-to-face meetings were expensive and could be
held only on a limited basis.
When the National Research Committee was formed, the Canadian literature of family medicine research was meager. The number of studies done was small, and those published in the Canadian Family Physician would not show up in a search of the Index Medicus (IM), which was generally accepted as the major reference for medical publications world-wide. Until the advent of computer access to the literature, a search meant long hours reading pages of fine print. In his survey of the literature in 1971 Michael Livingston found few original studies by general practitioners in Canada. He described nine case reports and twelve research articles published from 1957 to 1971, presumably listed in IM although two articles from the Canadian Family Physician were included in his list (Livingston, M.C.P., 1972). Livingston expanded on his list of researchers in a report in the Canadian Family Physician (Livingston, M.C.P., 1974), a useful attempt to "rescue from obscurity the work of 21 Canadian family physician researchers in the period 1950-1970".
The Canadian Library of Family Medicine
One of the first activities of the new national research committee was the establishment of the Canadian Library of Family Medicine. It was the idea of Dr. Robert Westbury of Calgary, who worked on its organization and chaired the library committee. The library was given space in the medical library at Western, and was supported financially by the College. Rather than being a collection of books, it was set up as a reference centre to which College members from across Canada could write or phone to ask for reprints or literature searches on any topic. The references available included more than the Index Medicus, as the library aimed to include any publications relevant to family medicine. It was one of the early steps towards development of a much- needed academic base for family medicine. The first librarian was Mr. Ashford Johnson in 1972, succeeded by Dorothy Fitzgerald, and by Lynn Dunikowski. Other sources of information were described by Westbury (Westbury, R.C., 1970).
Medical schools
Just as the school at Western had a library which could accommodate the small library of family medicine, each medical school served the medical community as well as the students. As an example, even the library at U.B.C., one of the youngest medical schools, had an extensive collection of books and journals, as well as an archival section.
Medical organizations
As an example of a provincial service, the library of
the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons has been
available for many years, having evolved from the early
establishment by the Vancouver Medical Association. This
library was linked to local medical libraries throughout the
province. The Victoria Medical Society library, another old
one, has been helpful in providing references for this book.
It has a collection of current and old journals, some of which
are from the nineteenth century. It is likely that the other
provinces have similar services available.
The library of the RCGP, mentioned above for its
bibliography, is also a prime source of books and journals
related to general practice. It has encouraged contact with
family doctors from other countries, offering help to search
the literature.
Personal
The large volume of material arriving because of membership in various organizations creates a problem of storage. A selection process was necesssary to preserve those which were considered most likely to be of interest in future, or to file tear-outs so they could be retrieved easily. Books also could be useful, although some clinical texts could be out-dated too soon while others have basic knowledge which remains pertinent. Some books had historical interest and value, according to the interests of the individual, and some had basic principles which stood the test of time.
Various lists of research work done by general practitioners have been prepared. The following include the best available, and contain many more references than can be included with the examples chosen for this book. They show the range and breadth of subjects and of researchers.
The RCGP list
The best source of information about general practice projects was the library of the Royal College of General Practitioners, in London, England. The librarian, Margaret Hammond, maintained and published a record of general practice studies throughout the world. For years, this was the only reasonably complete list available for family medicine.
The ACGP Digest
The Australian College of General Practitioners published the Research Digest (Rowe, I.L., [Ed., 1968, 1972 ]), a list of studies done in Australia during the ten-year period up to 1968. An abstract was written for each entry. This was followed in 1972 by another list of recent projects. Some of these are descibed in Chapter 3, as examples, but the total number is overwhelming when we consider the size of the country and the relatively small population compared with other world powers.
Zaborenko
In 1968 Zaborenko and Zwell published a list of studies in general practice, most of which were from the U.S.A. or Britain (Zaborenko, L., 1968). Many were from the JRCGP, and most had been published since 1960. They noted that the number of publications in the 18-month period in which they were collecting data equalled the number in the preceding six years, and that many were from individual general practitioners reporting on their own practices. In a follow-up bibliography on training for family practice, they included many additonal references (Zwell, M.E., 1970).
Tenney
Another useful list of studies of the content of medical practice was compiled by Dr. James Tenney and published by Johns Hopkins University (Tenney, J.B., 1969).
RAP
The Research Awareness Publication (RAP) was
another brainchild of Dr. Robert Westbury, who originated
and produced an occasional current list of projects by
Canadian family physicians. It appeared first in December,
1970. Seven issues were published at irregular intevals until
August, 1976. Projects were listed according to category of
research, in four main groups: epidemiological,
organizational, clinical and therapeutic. RAP was unique in
classifying projects also according to the stage of
development: idea-planned-underway-completed-published-or abandoned. Successive issues showed
progress from the idea stage to the final outcome (Westbury,
R.C., 1971 and 1973). RAP included many more studies
than I have listed as examples. Apart from those published,
RAP showed many ideas which never proceeded to
completion, although it showed topics which were
considered to be important enough to be worth studying.
By 1976, the College had developed a research office
at its headquarters in Toronto, and the listing of projects was
taken over by research associate Daniel Brackstone, Ph.D.
The general idea of RAP was continued and in 1980 was
expanded into a new publication called Family Medicine
Research: a Current Canadian Index.
FAMLI
Also in 1980, WONCA published the first edition of the Family Medicine Literature Index '(FAMLI), using the same format as Index Medicus, to provide a record of work done in any country. It would have been useful in the early years.
From its early days as a newsletter Between Ourselves,
the RCGP record of the results of research by general
practitioners was ahead, in time and scope, of any general
practice journal in the world. The newsletter grew to
become The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners
(JRCGP), providing a medium for publishing papers from
around the world. It is now called the British Journal of
General Practice.
In Canada and the U.S.A., the general practice
journals were publishing many articles by specialists, often
in the how-to-do-it category, but little original research by
family doctors. It seemed that the reason for a lack of
published articles was the lack of research by general
practitioners, along with failure to take the final step of
preparing results suitably for publication. The Canadian
Family Physician (CFP) was not listed in the Index Medicus,
so there was a disincentive to submit research papers to it.
However, after the research committee started its new
approach in 1968, space was provided by the supportive
editor, David Woods, for a monthly newspage to promote an
interest in research. A latent interest became apparent when
readership surveys gave the research newspage a
consistently high rating. In time, more research papers were
submitted by family physicians. Eventually the journal was
listed in Index Medicus, possibly because of the increased
number of research papers.
Other publications appeared, directed primarily at
promoting and printing research reports by family
practitioners. The Journal of Family Practice (JFP) in the
U.S.A., was started by NAPCRG in 1978 and published
monthly. As well as publishing studies in general practice, it
produced useful special editions devoted to the general
principles and methods of research, and to some of the basic
studies of the content of family practice.
Examples of the work in other countries were
published in journals such as the American Family Physician
(AmFP)and the Australian Family Physician (AuFP), known
originally as the Annals of General Practice.
The international WONCA News, which started in
1974, eventually was included in a new publication by
Oxford University press, Family Practice. Along with
general information about activities in family practice,
WONCA News included reports on research by the many
member countries.
Even with all the literature available, there was still a need for face-to-face contacts at reasonable intervals, to allow for discussion and planning of objectives and projects. Nowadays the prevalence of aids such as fax machines, conference calls, and E-mail might reduce the need for meetings, but those things were not readily available in the early days.
Meetings
When Dr. Jim Collyer's new national committee took
shape, with members from each province, the major benefit
was the establishment of personal links between members.
These were strengthened at two-day meetings of the
committee, usually in Toronto. Each provincial member
would report on developments, leading to a detailed
discussion of progress. Plans to promote and assist research
activity nationally as well as provincially were presented for
critique and possible action. It was still necessary for the
committee to convince the Board of the College, which had
provided good support and encouragement, of its
capabilities in research. Other committees of the College
tended to undertake surveys and projects without using the
potential benefit of advice from the research committee
members, who might have benefited from the experience of
evaluating plans.
An omnipresent problem in all Canadian committees
was the size of the country. A British visitor to the Muskoka
Workshop, Ruth Pinsent, wearily commented on a boat
cruise "but there's so much of everything!".
Communication in any form was expensive. The cost of
airfare and accommodation for a two-day meeting of fifteen
members required a large budget, and two meetings per
year were the limit. It was necessary to conduct much of the
work of the committee by mail, or by telephone. We could
envy the relative ease of communication in Britain, where
the small size of the country made meeting much easier. On
the other hand, Australia had the same difficulty as Canada,
with an even smaller population spread mostly over the
southern portion of a large country, with its largest
population centres in the east. In spite of the similar
geographical problems, the Australian College had
produced a large and useful body of research.
Some of the papers presented at workshops and
scientific sessions of the College, NAPCRG and WONCA
were published in 'proceedings' which were distributed to
registrants but not usually published elsewhere. Many of
these were based on recent research or works in progress,
and were printed as abstracts rather than complete
descriptions of the work. Discussions with the audience had
the potential to improve a final publication or to improve the
planning for a project.
Delphi
To help provide timely advice to those planning
projects, a major initiative was undertaken by Dr. John
Garson, of Saskatoon. He developed a postal network for
long-range discussion of research proposals by family
physicians, to provide a variety of informed feedback. This
network, named Delphi, involved making and mailing
copies of proposals to members of the national research
committtee, with a request to study them and return a
critique within a specified time.
To follow the theme of the Delphic Oracle, Dr. Garson
was given the name 'Oribasius' in his communications with
his widely-scattered team of minor oracles. The first project,
started in December, 1970, was to give opinions and
suggestions about the proposed Illness Observation Unit.
The mnemonic 'IOU' was intended to indicate that we owe
it to our patients to study their problems so that we might
improve their treatment. This project went through a long
process of planning, and eventually surfaced as the National
Research System (NaReS). Over the next four years,
opinions were requested by Delphi on a variety of projects,
such as:
* Use of a Physician's Associate
* Package Programs, in cooperation with the Research Unit of the RCGP
* The Canadian Library of Family Medicine
* Family Life Education
* The Diagnostic Process
* Trace elements related to Morbidity
* Vitamin E in Coronary Heart Disease
* Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease
* Group Therapy Evaluation of a patient information manual
* A Social Worker in a general practice
* FACMIS, a system of keeping medical records.
The work of sending out requests to the oracles and
reporting their opinions to the applicants was done by Dr.
Garson, with help from his office and from his best friend
and critic, his wife, Ruth. What a help it would have been if
we had had the later benefits of clear and easy photocopies,
fax machines, computer word-processing and E-mail!!!
The patient records
The gold mine of information, described by Jim
Collyer, could be used for retrospective studies if the records
were reasonably complete. For prospective studies, details
could be recorded in ways that made extraction or transfer
of data accurate, but a system of checking and confirming
data was advisable.
Records of patient contacts in or out of the office were
especially important in group practice where several doctors
might become involved with a patient over time. Even for
the usual doctor, good notes served as reminders of past
contacts and an advantage in assessing current problems.
Dr. Wayne Weston described the gradual adoption of the
problem-oriented system in his group practice, and the
apparent improvement in care as a result (Weston, W. W.,
1973). That might be a benefit to the practice, but not
necessarily set up in a way that results could be copied and
compared in other practices. For any project, the objectives
must be clear, and recording consistent so that results can be
useful for comparison and publication.
Patient - doctor communication
The essential for good care is the ability for both parties to listen, and to say the things necessary to identify the problems and to deal with them effectively, together.
Writing for publication
A study might have provided valuable results, of
great interest and satisfaction to the researcher, but it was
necessary to learn how to put all the relevant details of
planning and execution into a form which was complete and
concise. In the absence of word-processors, there was
usually a requirement for a type-written double-spaced
manuscript, with multiple copies. Each journal might have
variations in its format, until the Convention of Vancouver
provided a format which was accepted by most journals
which we were likely to use. However, each journal
publishes the advice about its own requirements, and should
be consulted before anything is prepared for submission.
There are many reference books on the process of
writing, the organization of data and the economy of words.
Dr. Jim Collyer found that an editorial consultant could be
very helpful, and advised other researchers that they would
have a better chance of publication if such expert advice was
obtained.
It is important for researchers to publish the results of
their work whenever possible, to add to the body of family
medicine. The sharing of their experience can be of benefit
to others, as well as providing the opportunity of feedback
to the author to confirm, challenge, or expand on the results.
Even negative results are of value, both for the information
obtained and perhaps to help others to avoid wasting time in
doing the same thing.
The result of all research is expected to be of benefit to patients, by the process of communication. Research can find answers, but they need to be passed along so that they can be used in practice.
|
Canada • USA • UK • Republic of Ireland URL http://www.trafford.com © 1995-2005 Trafford Publishing, a division of Trafford Holdings Ltd. Trafford's Privacy Policy: Client information will never be provided to anyone outside of Trafford and its subsidiaries except where required by law. |