Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10750231›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2000

General practitioners' views of working with team midwifery.

M Farquhar, C Camilleri-Ferrante, C Todd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

M FarquharInstitute of Public Health, University of Cambridge.
C Camilleri-Ferrante
C Todd

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This report presents the results of a survey of general practitioners (GPs) working alongside a midwifery team in south-east England. Sixty-nine per cent of the GPs thought team midwifery was a good idea in theory. However, just 37% thought it was working well locally and 56% reported that they would like to go back to working in the way they did before. Of greatest concern was the decline in interprofessional communications and the loss of continuity for patients. Therefore, team midwifery, as implemented in this locality, may not attain the goals aimed at by the organisation of care in this way.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsAttitude of Health PersonnelContinuity of Patient CareEnglandFemaleHumansMidwiferyNursing, TeamPhysicians, FamilyPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID10750231
PMCPMC1313653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.