ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Adult cystic fibrosis patients' experiences of primary care consultations: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Criteria to evaluate unmet health-related needs of persons living with rare diseases and their caregivers: rapid literature review and stakeholder consultations.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Review
- Telemedicine in cystic fibrosis.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Expert patient" programmes have been introduced in the UK as a new approach to chronic disease management for the 21st century. The average survival age of those with cystic fibrosis (CF) has steadily increased such that the majority of those with the condition now live into adulthood. Currently, specialist CF centres deliver the core of medical care, with primary care providing access to prescribed medicines, referral to other services, and care of non-CF needs, however, it is necessary to provide a more comprehensive service for adult CF patients, involving both specialist centres and primary care. To date, little is known about these expert patients' experiences of primary care.
aimTo investigate how young adults with CF perceive and experience primary healthcare services. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study.
settingOne specialist CF centre in southeast England.
methodInterview study of 31 patients with CF, aged 18 years or over.
resultsAdults with CF consult in primary care on two distinct levels: as lay and expert patients. When consulting as experts, patients tend to operate as consumers of health care and perceive a satisfactory doctor-patient relationship to be influenced by three factors: GPs' understanding of how people live with CF, GPs' ability to prescribe certain specialist medications, and sensitive management of the cost of health care for adults with CF. A doctor-patient relationship based on trust and understanding is seen as desirable, but requires that these factors are addressed both by the GP and the patient.
conclusionExpert patient policy has focused on the role of patients with common chronic conditions in secondary and tertiary care, with little consideration of how adults with rare chronic illness and their GPs manage health problems that can be addressed in primary care. Enabling easy access to holistic care, as well as establishing successful trusting relationships with people with long-term rare conditions, is a necessary foundation for expert patients to take an active role in their care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16834878PMC1872062W1829451728What 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.