Uncovering the hidden benefits of research in General Practice

Research is fundamental for advancing healthcare, driving innovations in treatments, diagnostics, and care delivery. Healthcare settings, from large hospitals to local clinics, play a crucial role in this process by recruiting patients to take part in studies and carrying out the activities that generate study data. Medical studies not only contribute to scientific knowledge but also potentially bring benefits to the participating institutions.

In secondary care, there is growing evidence that research-active hospitals show better patient outcomes, even for patients not directly involved in studies . For example, hospitals with higher levels of cancer research show better patient outcomes. However, the impact of research activity in primary care settings, particularly general practices, has been less extensively explored. Given the pivotal role of general practice in the NHS, understanding these impacts is crucial for informing policy and practice.

In recent research in collaboration with colleagues from the Universities of Manchester, Cambridge, UCL, Keele, Southampton and Oxford we conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 41 general practice staff and 21 organisations involved in medical research across England. We aimed to explore how taking part in research impacted on practices and uncover any ways in which research activity might influence practice performance. Videos on this study developed by students supported by the NIHR School of Primary Care Research (SPCR) have been released this week (see below). 

The benefits

Our study revealed a range of benefits across different groups. For GPs, we found enhanced job satisfaction, with many reporting that research activities provided welcome variety in their workload, potentially mitigating burnout. Engagement in research also contributed to professional development, keeping staff updated on innovations and evidence-based practices.

Patients benefited through access to new treatments as some studies provided options not routinely available. We also observed improved care resources and processes, with research leading to more thorough patient reviews and better follow-up systems. Our analysis also showed that research can allow more time to enable patients to build better connections with healthcare staff, providing additional time to share their concerns. Many patients were also keen to support broader benefits to society through their own contribution to research.

The practices themselves gained additional resources, as research activities often brought in extra equipment or staff time. Some practices noted an enhanced reputation, improving their standing in their communities and making staff recruitment easier.

These benefits extended to the wider healthcare system. Research often led to better coding in practices, benefiting overall health system data quality. The positive impact on job satisfaction could also contribute to retaining skilled professionals in primary care, addressing a critical challenge in the sector.

Importantly, we found few reports of negative impacts, suggesting that the benefits of taking part in research outweigh the costs for many practices. 

Improving participation

Our findings have significant implications for general practice and show broader benefits to practices taking part in research, beyond the immediate research activity alone. Traditionally, research networks have focused on the scientific merits and potential patient benefits when recruiting practices for studies. However, our findings suggest that highlighting the wider advantages could encourage more practices to take part in research.

Policymakers should consider ways to incentivise or support research activity in general practices, not just as a means of generating new knowledge, but as a tool for supporting care quality and workforce sustainability.

Looking ahead, while our qualitative study provides valuable insights, future research could help validate these findings across a broader range of practices. We also need to investigate potential differences between practices supporting external studies and practitioner-led research. Additionally, work is needed to design and implement systems that can help practices engage in research while managing their day-to-day responsibilities. We also need to support careful decision-making about the opportunities and challenges of participation in different forms of research (e.g. commercial, or university-based). 

Patients are key to supporting general practice involvement in research. Additional work is needed to broaden the opportunities for diverse patient groups to engage in research, and better understand what involvement in research can mean for them – for example, direct participation (e.g. taking part in an interview) or indirect (with anonymised data contributing to a study analysis). With rapid evolution of digital technologies, future research needs to work in partnership with patients to tackle emerging challenges and concerns about personal data use. 

Our study suggests that encouraging research engagement could be part of a strategy for helping practices improve patient care, enhance practitioner experience, and contribute to the broader goals of the NHS. The ARAPAHO study showed no detrimental effects on general practice performance through research participation, and some potential benefits on workforce wellbeing and retention. As we continue to navigate the challenges in primary care, leveraging the many benefits of research activity could play a crucial role in creating more resilient and effective general practices.

Read the paper, 'Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study' in BJGP Open 

Find out more about the NIHR ‘Be Part of Research’ Programme