The concept of knowledge mobilization (KMb) is prominent in governance frameworks of tri-council funding in Canada. Yet there are a number of conceptual and practical challenges when such ideas are proposed for adoption across large multidisciplinary contexts. This research note introduces the concept of critical knowledge mobilization as a way to understand KMb in large multidisciplinary teams and social gerontology. It begins with a high-level sketch of the historic changes in knowledge production and knowledge sharing, followed by a definition of critical knowledge mobilization and examples of historical ideas and everyday tensions in practice. Building on these, we propose the need to advance and shift the culture of KMb, and to embark on engaged research as a means of innovation. We suggest that a reflexive process of critical KMb can facilitate innovation and promote a culture of knowledge mobilization in Canadian social gerontology.

Aim: To describe the scope and nature of research capacity building activity within academic departments of general practice and rural health in Australia. Method: Document review of Annual Reports for the years 2000 and 2003 of 17 university departments of general practice and rural health, funded through the Research Capacity Building Initiative (RCBI) of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy. Results: The review indicated that from 2000 to 2003, departments increased their activities in all areas of research capacity building activities. Mentoring and/or supervision other than higher degree students increased from 14 in 2000 to 266 in 2003. Twenty-two research networks involving over 1377 participants were operating in 2003. All departments were involved in collaborations either as part of grant applications, research projects or educational activities. Over 3630 people participated in 189 educational activities in 2003 compared to over 624 people attending 103 activities in 2000. Compared to $10.98 million in 2000, departments had obtained more than $15.6 million for research projects in 2003. While there were more peer reviewed papers published in 2000 (n = 178) compared to 2003 (n = 130), these 17 departments gave 187 conference presen-tations. Conclusions: This review shows that the RCBI has contributed towards a considerable increase in research activities in these university departments of general practice and rural health. This has provided a major boost to primary health care research in Australia. These activities would have been unlikely to occur without the support and assistance of the PHCRED Strategy. Clearly, the full impact of the RCBI will take some time to evolve.

Primary care research networks were established in Scotland to encourage research in primary care and build capacity. The aim of this descriptive study was to evaluate the primary care research network in Dumfries and Galloway, a rural area of Scotland, by describing the methods used and the outcomes in terms of research training and completed projects. All primary care professionals working in the region were offered an initial grant to buy time for research training to develop their own research ideas. Those attending the two day research training course were encouraged to submit a protocol for funding and Local Research Ethics Committee approval. Of the 605 and 717 primary care professionals circulated in the first and second years, 23 (4%) and 11 (2%), respectively applied for a research training grant. Of these, eight completed a research project together with a further six who had previous research training. Eleven (79%) of the 14 completed projects were the subject of oral presentations and 11 were submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. Only a small minority of professionals working in primary care will want to develop their own research, and this requires support, protected time and long-term mentoring. Building research capacity in primary care involves a number of activities ranging from funding academic units, to giving opportunities for non-academics to undertake research. These distinctions are important for decisions about appropriate funding and support.

The need for research that is applicable to the most common health problems is well recognized. Some of this research will be in the area of primary care, and family doctors must contribute to the research for it to be effective in improving care. Using a sample of key informants from 10 different countries, this paper explores the extent to which family doctors are involved in research in the various regions of the globe. We find great variability in the level of research being conducted by family doctors at academic institutions and in the development of the community research structures, such as practice based research networks. Despite the problems, family doctors are involved in research in every region assessed, and there is room for optimism that this role will be substantially expanded.

In this paper we attempt to explore the meaning, understanding, usefulness and reality of multidisciplinary research in primary care and provide examples. We debate the issues around roles of people in multidisciplinary research, the value of such research and its application to patient care. We also discuss the perceived threats and opportunities to multidisciplinary research, possible reasons for such perceptions, funding, and research governance, education and training issues. We then go on to consider the emerging relationship between primary care organizations (PCOs) and primary care research teams. We specifically address the activities of research general practices and their implications in terms of contributing to multidisciplinary research and training. We question the traditional model of academic research; raise awareness and need for grassroots primary care research and the importance of capacity building through a multidisciplinary model. We have tried to suggest examples and models of multidisciplinary research that can be seamless, include a range of practices and health professionals, and performs research that is contextual, pragmatic and directly beneficial to patients. We feel that for a successful multidisciplinary research workforce in primary care to become a reality, several key areas need to be addressed. Perhaps the most important of these may involve a conceptual change in thinking by all concerned in that we believe that research in primary care should become an integral part of routine primary care in the same way as health professionals routinely see patients or conduct audits. This could, however, only happen if there is commitment, support and a vision for the future of primary care research from decision makers. Local research networks and PCOs need to work closely together in identifying, nurturing and maintaining multidisciplinary research interest.

Tayside's Primary Care Research and Development Network (TayRen) was awarded £140K per annum for 4 years from 1998 by the Scottish Office Department of Health. The operating model of TayRen is described and the outcomes highlighted. A multiprofessional, multidisciplinary, methodologically rigorous and locally responsive approach has contributed to the outcomes achieved. The network has enabled practitioners to gain research experience by working with more experienced colleagues. The research culture of Tayside has matured since the formation of TayRen as evidenced by the increased number of research practices (six), training fellowships (three), registration for higher degrees (18), grants (£3.9m) and publications (96). In conclusion, TayRen has increased research activity in primary care in Tayside.