SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1999
Recommendations for future studies: a systematic review of educational interventions in primary care settings.
Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Can the feedback of patient assessments, brief training, or their combination, improve the interpersonal skills of primary care physicians? A systematic review.BMC health services research · 2008Pooled it
- Combined intervention programme reduces inappropriate prescribing in elderly patients exposed to polypharmacy in primary care.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2009Trial
- Drivers for change in primary care of diabetes following a protected learning time educational event: interview study of practitioners.BMC medical education · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews are an important part of the current move towards evidence-based practice. Independent reviewers use a variety of search strategies to identify and assess relevant articles in the field of concern. Criteria for quality must be agreed and articles evaluated accordingly. This study systematically reviewed educational interventions targeting physicians in primary care (excluding hospital clinic and academic settings) to determine their effectiveness in changing behaviour and to investigate whether studies gave information about the resource implications of the interventions described and their rationale for choosing a particular target group. Studies in English, French, or German language journals were included. The review applied the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration for methodological quality of studies (but was not conducted under the auspices of the Cochrane Collaboration). The results showed that relatively few studies had occurred in primary care compared with academic and hospital clinic settings. Many articles did not fit the criteria for rigour of method, and those that did were very heterogeneous in method and target group. Only two studies assessed resource implications, and one study also calculated economic benefits. The review suggests that future studies should either target geographical areas or doctors with an identifiable learning need associated with patient outcome, and that studies should be evaluated on their 'intention to educate'. Evaluations of educational initiatives need to describe the resource implications versus measurable benefits of the intervention to make their studies useful to policymakers and planners of educational provision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
10824348PMC1313589W1552171686What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.