Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14974038›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings.

R L Gruen, T S Weeramanthri, S E Knight, R S Bailie

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 227 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Mobile clinics for women's and children's health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

R L GruenPopulation Health and Chronic Disease Division, Menzies School of Health Research & Flinders University NT Clinical School, P.O. Box 41096, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia.
T S Weeramanthri
S E Knight
R S Bailie
Government of Western Australia Department of Health · AUMenzies School of Health Research · AUThe Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecialist medical practitioners have conducted clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings for a variety of reasons in many different countries. Such clinics have been regarded as an important policy option for increasing the accessibility and effectiveness of specialist services and their integration with primary care services.

objectivesTo undertake a descriptive overview of studies of specialist outreach clinics and to assess the effectiveness of specialist outreach clinics on access, quality, health outcomes, patient satisfaction, use of services, and costs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) specialised register (March 2002), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR) (Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2002), MEDLINE (including HealthStar) (1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (1988 to March 2002), CINAHL (1982 to March 2002), the Primary-Secondary Care Database previously maintained by the Centre for Primary Care Research in the Department of General Practice at the University of Manchester, a collection of studies from the UK collated in "Specialist Outreach Clinics in General Practice" (Roland 1998), and the reference lists of all retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series analyses of visiting specialist outreach clinics in primary care or rural hospital settings, either providing simple consultations or as part of complex multifaceted interventions. The participants were patients, specialists, and primary care providers. The outcomes included objective measures of access, quality, health outcomes, satisfaction, service use, and cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers working in pairs independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN

results73 outreach interventions were identified covering many specialties, countries and settings. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Most comparative studies came from urban non-disadvantaged populations in developed countries. Simple 'shifted outpatients' styles of specialist outreach were shown to improve access, but there was no evidence of impact on health outcomes. Specialist outreach as part of more complex multifaceted interventions involving collaboration with primary care, education or other services was associated with improved health outcomes, more efficient and guideline-consistent care, and less use of inpatient services. The additional costs of outreach may be balanced by improved health outcomes. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThis review supports the hypothesis that specialist outreach can improve access, outcomes and service use, especially when delivered as part of a multifaceted intervention. The benefits of simple outreach models in urban non-disadvantaged settings seem small. There is a need for good comparative studies of outreach in rural and disadvantaged settings where outreach may confer most benefit to access and health outcomes.

Indexed as

Medically Underserved AreaSpecializationCommunity-Institutional RelationsHealth Services AccessibilityHospitals, RuralHumansMedicinePrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRural Health Services

Identifiers

PMID14974038
PMCPMC9016793
OpenAlexW1893961784

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.