ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2000
NHSnet in Scottish primary care: lessons for the future.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Access to the evidence base from general practice: a survey of general practice staff in Northern and Yorkshire Region.Quality in health care : QHC · 2001Article
- Electronics, clinicians, and the NHS.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the primary care communications initiative, which introduced NHSnet to primary care in Scotland.
designSemi-structured telephone interviews, postal questionnaire.
settingAll 15 Scottish health boards, random sample of 1 in 3 of all Scottish general practices.
participantsInformation management and technology managers of health boards, 355 practice managers in the general practices.
main outcome measuresVariations between health boards in styles of project management, means of connection to NHSnet, costs to general practices, and training provided. Practices' levels of participation in initiative, initial use of NHSnet, and factors acting as incentives and disincentives to use of NHSnet.
results99% of Scottish general practices agreed to participate in initiative. Health boards varied significantly in project management styles (from minimal to total control), the nature of the networks they established (intranets or direct connections), costs to practices (from nothing to pound125 per general practitioner per year), and training provided (from none to an extensive programme). In 56% of practices someone accessed NHSnet at least once a week. Practices varied considerably in amount of internet training received and staff groups targeted and in the intention to provide desktop access to NHSnet through a practice network.
conclusionThe initiative has successfully introduced a network that links Scottish general practices, health boards, and hospital trusts. However local variation in this "national" initiative may affect its use in primary care. Health authorities and general practices in England and Wales may wish to note these findings in order to avoid unhelpful variation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.