Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005
Economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interests led dermatology service in primary care.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology: randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- The integration of dermatology experts into primary care to assess and treat patients with skin lesions is cost-effective: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Article
- A review of UK primary care pathways for acute ophthalmic conditions.Eye (London, England) · 2025Review
- Reorganising dermatology care: predictors of the substitution of secondary care with primary care.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Assessing patient satisfaction with a microsuction service in general practice: a comparative study.BJGP open · 2019Article
- Article
- Handling Missing Data in Within-Trial Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Review with Future Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- Clinical and economic benefit of general practitioner integration to a symptomatic breast service.Irish journal of medical science · 2016Article
- Knowledge structure and theme trends analysis on general practitioner research: A Co-word perspective.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- What proportion of adult allergy referrals to secondary care could be dealt with in primary care by a GP with special interest?Clinical and translational allergy · 2015Article
- A study of role expansion: a new GP role in cardiology care.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- GPwSIs and ITPs in general practice: a case study in gynaecology.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Article
- Counting on commitment; the quality of primary care-led diabetes management in a system with minimal incentives.BMC health services research · 2011Article
- Consultant physicians for the future: report from a working party of the Royal College of Physicians and the medical specialties.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2010Review
- [Organisational reforms in the relationships between general doctors and specialists: impact on referrals].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- Estimating preferences for a dermatology consultation using Best-Worst Scaling: comparison of various methods of analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2008Article
- A new GP with special interest headache service: observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2008Article
- Providing care closer to home.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Article
- Care closer to home: past mistakes, future opportunities.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2007Review
- GPs, operations, and the community.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo carry out an economic evaluation of a general practitioner with special interest service for non-urgent skin problems compared with hospital outpatient care.
designCost effectiveness analysis and cost consequences analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.
settingGeneral practitioner with special interest dermatology service covering 29 general practices in Bristol.
participantsAdults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic who were potentially suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest.
interventionsParticipants were randomised 2:1 to receive either care by general practitioner with special interest service or usual hospital outpatient care.
main outcome measuresCosts to NHS, patients, and companions, and costs of lost production. Cost effectiveness, using the two primary outcomes of dermatology life quality index scores and improved patient perceived access, was assessed by incremental cost effectiveness ratios and cost effectiveness acceptability curves. Cost consequences are presented in relation to all costs and both primary and secondary outcomes from the trial.
resultsCosts to the NHS for patients attending the general practitioner with special interest service were 208 pounds sterling (361 dollars; 308 euro) compared with 118 pounds sterling for hospital outpatient care. Based on analysis with imputation of missing data, costs to patients and companions were 48 pounds sterling and 51 pounds sterling, respectively; costs of lost production were 27 pounds sterling and 34 pounds sterling, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios for general practitioner with special interest care over outpatient care were 540 pounds sterling per one point gain in the dermatology life quality index and 66 pounds sterling per 10 point change in the access scale.
conclusionsThe general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology is more costly than hospital outpatient care, but this additional cost needs to be weighed against improved access and broadly similar health outcomes.
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.