ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
Measuring consultation skills in primary care in England: evaluation and development of content of the MAAS scale.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- A novel model of ambulatory teaching of residents in general practice in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- How well do public sector primary care providers function as medical generalists in Cape Town: a descriptive survey.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Psychometric properties of the Calgary Cambridge guides to assess communication skills of undergraduate medical students.International journal of medical education · 2014Article
- Frequency of GP communication addressing the patient's resources and coping strategies in medical interviews: a video-based observational study.BMC family practice · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsultation skills are essential for general practice. Tools for measuring consultation skills in everyday practice are not well developed
aimTo examine and develop the content validity of the MAAS History-taking and Advice Checklist GP (MAAS-GP) tool which is used in The Netherlands for testing consultation skills, with simulated patients in United Kingdom general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative research using semi-structured interviews.
settingAlternate patients attending seven general practices in the north west of England.
methodThematic analysis of the contents of patient and GP interviews, and of focus groups, mapping key themes to the MAAS-GP.
resultsThere was strong agreement between patients and GPs on issues mapping to 46 out of 68 items of the MAAS-GP. Eight further MAAS-GP items were linked to issues only raised by patients and four to issues raised only by GPs. The remaining 10 items could not be related to issues raised by either. All of the issues raised by GPs could be mapped but 27 patient items could not. These were included in a revised checklist, the Liverpool MAAS (LIV-MAAS).
conclusionthe revised tool seems to have content validity in measuring consultation skills. Measurement of its relability is now required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12434956PMC1314439What 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.