Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2004
Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insightful practice: a reliable measure for medical revalidation.BMJ quality & safety · 2012Article
- Revalidation: a critical perspective.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
- [Self-audit and tutor accreditation].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- Regulation of doctors.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Article
- GP perceptions of appraisal: professional development, performance management, or both?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- Revalidation: swallow hard.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners.
designRandomised comparison of two revalidation models.
settingPrimary care in Tayside, Scotland.
participants66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combining revalidation with continuing professional development.
main outcome measuresFeasibility and acceptability of each approach and effect on the doctor's continuing professional development. The ability to make a summative judgment on completed models and whether either model would allow patient groups to have confidence in the revalidation process.
resultsThe criterion model was preferred by general practitioners. For both models doctors reported making changes to their practice and felt a positive effect on their continuing professional development. Summative assessment of the folders showed reasonable inter-rater reliability.
conclusionsThe criterion model provides a practical and acceptable model for general practitioners to use when preparing for revalidation.
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.