Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15113523›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004

Systematic review of recent innovations in service provision to improve access to primary care.

Jenifer L Chapman, Annegret Zechel, Yvonne H Carter, Stephen Abbott

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 135 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Review
  12. Improving access to general practice for and with people with severe and multiple disadvantage: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  13. A paradox of problems in accessing general practice: a qualitative participatory case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jenifer L ChapmanCentre for Infectious Disease, Institute of Cell and Molecular Sciences, Queen Mary's, University of London, London. j.l.chapman@qmul.ac.uk
Annegret Zechel
Yvonne H Carter
Stephen Abbott
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn England, there are particularly pressing problems concerning access to adequate primary care services. Consequently, innovative ways of delivering primary care have been introduced to facilitate and broaden access.

aimsThe aim of this study was to review the evidence of seven recent innovations in service provision to improve access or equity in access to primary care, by performing a systematic review of the literature. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review.

settingPrimary care in the United Kingdom (UK).

methodSeven electronic databases were searched and key journals were hand-searched. Unpublished and 'grey' literature were sought via the Internet and through professional contacts. Intervention studies addressing one of seven recent innovations and conducted in the UK during the last 20 years were included. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of papers.

resultsThirty studies (32 papers and two reports) were identified overall. Variation in study design and outcome measures made comparisons difficult. However, there was some evidence to suggest that access is improved by changing the ways in which primary care is delivered. First-wave personal medical services pilots facilitated improvements in access to primary care in previously under-served areas and/or populations. Walk-in centres and NHS Direct have provided additional access to primary care for white middle-class patients; there is some evidence suggesting that these innovations have increased access inequalities. There is some evidence that telephone consultations with GPs or nurses can safely substitute face-to-face consultations, although it is not clear that this reduces the number of face-to-face consultations over time. Nurse practitioners and community pharmacists can manage common conditions without the patient consulting a general practitioner.

conclusionThe evidence is insufficient to make clear recommendations regarding ways to improve access to primary care. In the future, it is important that, as new initiatives are planned, well-designed evaluations are commissioned simultaneously.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityAmbulatory Care FacilitiesFamily PracticeHotlinesHumansNurse PractitionersPrimary Health CareRemote ConsultationState MedicineTriage

Identifiers

PMID15113523
PMCPMC1266174
OpenAlexW1956553728

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.