Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11593838›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2001

A healthy disposition? The use and limitations of the characteristics approach to general practice research.

D L Baines

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

D L BainesMedM Ltd, Endon House, 98 Stamford Avenue, Springfield, Milton Keynes MK6 3LQ. director@medm.co.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A range of easily identifiable characteristics is often used by researchers and general practitioners to categorise primary care practices. In the United Kingdom, for example, practices can be defined as dispensing, single-handed or training. The availability of routinely collected data has led to a growing research literature that links practice characteristics to their workload, performance and costs. This paper examines the use and limitations of this 'characteristics approach' and argues that this type of research is often undertaken because it is easy to perform rather than because it is the most appropriate way to study primary care. Using this approach may lead to failure to do the following: to account for the environmental factors that determine the effects particular characteristics manifest; to identify the true relationships between the observed characteristics; to control for changes in the effects of characteristics over time; to differentiate between the behaviour of individual members of a group with the same characteristic and that of the group as a whole; to assign the correct causality to relationships between practice characteristics, workloads, performance, and costs. The characteristics approach should be used with great caution by general practice researchers.

Indexed as

Family PracticeBiasHealth Services ResearchHumansState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID11593838
PMCPMC1314105

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.