ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[The patient's right to information: influence of socio-professional factors in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of the Impact of Physicians' Occupational Well-Being on the Quality of Patient Care.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2015Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe the information provided by primary care doctors to their patients in different phases of the care provision process and to analyse any relationships with socio-professional factors.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional study based on postal questionnaire.
settingPrimary care centres in Murcia, Spain.
participants227 family physicians.
interventionsDistribution of a questionnaire which includes: a) socio-professional variables (age, sex, marital status, years in practice, years in present post, work environment, previous training, number of patients on list, number of patients seen daily); b) an evaluation of job satisfaction (Likert scale) related to salary, career choice, immediate superiors and daily surgery; and c) the frequency with which information is provided to patients concerning diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, complementary examinations and personal, professional and family impact. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsThe reply rate was 59%. The percentages of doctors who always provided information concerning diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, complementary examinations and person, professional and family impact was, 23.3%, 7%, 64.3%, 40.5%, and 9.7%, respectively. There was a direct and statistically significant relationship between job satisfaction and the information provided to patients, the doctors feeling most satisfaction providing the most information on the different phases of the care process. On the other hand, there was an inverse and statistically significant relationship between the number of patients on the doctors' lists and the information provided.
conclusionsThe degree of fulfillment of the patient's right to information is low. Doctors should realise the practical importance of clinical information in their work. There is a general feeling of discontent amongst family doctors, which has a negative impact on their professional activity. A lighter workload would significantly improve the extent to which doctors provide patients with information and mechanisms should be put in place to improve working conditions to avoid the non-fulfillment of the patient's right to information.
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.