ArticleAtencion primaria2007
[Attitudes of family doctors to patients' rights].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2007. 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.
- Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Research Among Psychiatric Outpatients: Prevalence and Associated Factors.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2016Article
- [Attitudes towards patients' rights as object of study in medical literature].Atencion primaria · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the attitudes of family doctors to patients' rights and to ascertain the social and professional variables that influence these views.
designDescriptive, cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire.
settingPrimary care, Murcia, Spain.
participantsTwo-hundred and twenty-seven family physicians, who filled in a postal questionnaire.
interventionsThe questionnaire included social and professional variables, evaluation of job satisfaction (by Likert scale 1-5), evaluation of patients' rights (Likert scale 1-5). MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND
resultsThe most valued right in the overall view of the doctors questioned was the right to suitable health care within a humane framework (4.86; 95% CI, 4.81-4.91), while the least valued right was the access to medical records (3.91; 95% CI, 3.76-4.05). Mean job satisfaction was 2.79 (95% CI, 2.71-2.87). We found: statistically significant differences in the assessment of patients' rights, which depended on various social and professional factors; direct associations between doctors' satisfaction and their views on patients' rights; and a significant correlation between overall evaluation of rights and total satisfaction (P=.039).
conclusionsOverall, family doctors attach a lot of importance to patients' rights. However, social and professional characteristics seem to have some influence on their attitudes: older doctors, those working in an urban context, those with few patients on their lists, in teaching centres, and those feeling the greatest professional satisfaction tend to attach greater importance to patients' rights.
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.