Aims: To gain structured feedback on a qualitative research methods training programme delivered to primary care researchers over a period of ten years. To examine dilemmas and challenges and how these had been resolved. To examine how the programme could be further developed. Background: The Wolds Primary Care Research Network's (WoReN) qualitative research methods training programme was developed and evolved in response to the needs of primary care practitioners and researchers and the NHS Research Agenda. Methods: Information on participants' professional backgrounds: which workshops they attended; their evaluation sheets, comments; and personal appraisals were collected from 1996 to 2006. Structured telephone conversations with a number of participants and ongoing informal feedback from participants added to this information. Numbers and ranges of professionals attending workshops were ascertained, how far they travelled to workshops and further degrees obtained by them, within the decade, were also noted. Findings: We found a lack of similar training elsewhere. A wide range of people attended workshops, especially general practitioners (GP) and academic researchers. Other practitioners were a significant presence however, and included nurses, pharmacists, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. Participants were prepared to attend extended workshops and to travel significant distances to them. Participants preferred a continuous cycle of workshops rather than discreet sessions, in order for them to consolidate their learning and to develop at their own pace. Practical exercises reflecting the qualitative research process were considered very conducive to learning and participants also appreciated one-to-one consultations about their work and longer-term, ongoing support as they progressed through their projects. Workshop design needed to continually reflect the changing requirements of participants, employers, funders, potential trainers and national NHS requirements. A new audience for training was identified in supervisors not versed in the qualitative paradigm.
