Analysis of Family Practice Academic Dissertations.
- Author:
Ki Hoon HA
1
;
Chul Won JANG
;
Jae Wook JEONG
;
Dong Uk LEE
;
Ki Heum PARK
;
Nak Jin SUNG
Author Information
1. Department of Family Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea. snj@dongguk.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
family practice;
academic dissertation;
research subjects;
methodology
- MeSH:
Case-Control Studies;
Cohort Studies;
Cross-Sectional Studies;
Family Practice*;
Health Promotion;
Hospitals, General;
Humans;
Medical Records;
Outpatients;
Primary Health Care;
Research Design;
Research Subjects;
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine
2006;27(11):883-888
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Family practice academic dissertations are the product of family practice research in the school of medicine. This paper was intended to evaluate the status of family practice academic dissertations, analyze the basic data and suggest directions for family practice research in the school of medicine. METHODS: The total number of masters' and doctoral dissertations from 1992 to February, 2005 was 124. of those, 120 were collected. They were analyzed in terms of research area, subjects, collected data, methodology, and statistical methods. RESULTS: In terms of research area, health promotion/ disease prevention was the most common (42.5%). For study subjects, out-patients and in-hospital patients were the most prevalent (38.0%), followed by health promotion center visitors and community residents (28.7%). When it came to research methodology, analytic study was the most common by a wide margin (70.8%). Among analytic studies, cross-sectional studies were the most frequent, followed by case-control studies and cohort studies. The most commonly-used data were medical records and questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Many advances have been made in research methodology and academic dissertation numbers since 1992. Many research topics, however, were not relevant to primary care. Much research was done in general hospital instead of primary-care facilities. These results must improve in the future.
