ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2002
Attitudes to the public release of comparative information on the quality of general practice care: qualitative study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Web-Based Public Reporting as a Decision-Making Tool for Consumers of Long-Term Care in the United States and the United Kingdom: Systematic Analysis of Report Cards.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- A review of attitudes towards the reuse of health data among people in the European Union: The primacy of purpose and the common good.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2019Review
- Public release of hospital quality data for referral practices in Germany: results from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Health economics review · 2017Article
- What Influences Patients' Decisions When Choosing a Health Care Provider? Measuring Preferences of Patients with Knee Arthrosis, Chronic Depression, or Alzheimer's Disease, Using Discrete Choice Experiments.Health services research · 2015Article
- Article
- Can the theoretical domains framework account for the implementation of clinical quality interventions?BMC health services research · 2013Article
- The challenge of improving patient safety in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009Article
- National quality and performance system for Divisions of General Practice: early reflections on a system under development.Australia and New Zealand health policy · 2008Article
- Use of comparative data for integrated cancer services.BMC health services research · 2007Article
- "Saying no is no easy matter" a qualitative study of competing concerns in rationing decisions in general practice.BMC health services research · 2005Article
- Is an NHS designed around the patient bad for your health?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- A practical method for monitoring general practice mortality in the UK: findings from a pilot study in a health board of Northern Ireland.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- Ethical principles and the rationing of health care: a qualitative study in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- Relationship between accreditation scores and the public disclosure of accreditation reports: a cross sectional study.Quality & safety in health care · 2005Article
- An ethical framework for cardiac report cards: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2005Article
- Condition based payment: improving care of chronic illness.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Review
- Primary care in the United States: profiling performance in primary care in the United States.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the attitudes of service users, general practitioners, and clinical governance leads based in primary care trusts to the public dissemination of comparative reports on quality of care in general practice, to guide the policy and practice of public disclosure of information in primary care.
designQualitative focus group study using mock quality report cards as prompts for discussion.
setting12 focus groups held in an urban area in north west England and a semirural area in the south of England.
participants35 service users, 24 general practitioners, and 18 clinical governance leads.
resultsThere was general support for the principle of publishing comparative information, but all three stakeholder groups expressed concerns about the practical implications. Attitudes were strongly influenced by experience of comparative reports from other sectors-for example, school league tables. Service users distrusted what they saw as the political motivation driving the initiative, expressed a desire to "protect" their practices from political and managerial interference, and were uneasy about practices being encouraged to compete against each other. General practitioners focused on the unfairness of drawing comparisons from current data and the risks of "gaming" the results. Clinical governance leads thought that public disclosure would damage their developmental approach to implementing clinical governance. The initial negative response to the quality reports seemed to diminish on reflection.
conclusionsDespite support for the principle of greater openness, the planned publication of information about quality of care in general practice is likely to face considerable opposition, not only from professional groups but also from the public. A greater understanding of the practical implications of public reporting is required before the potential benefits can be realised.
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.