ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[Do our patients know what a family medicine resident is?].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo find patients' view of the idea of family and community medicine (FCM) residents and of what they do and patients' satisfaction with their work.
designCross-sectional, descriptive study using a questionnaire.
settingFCM teaching health centres. Area 7, Madrid, Spain.
participantsTwenty-one tutors' lists, with 220 people. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Social and demographic variables, concept of FCM resident, satisfaction with resident, comparisons between resident and tutor, changes observed by patients in their doctor.
resultsWomen patients numbered 146 (66.4%); average age, 56.2 (18.95); 138 (62.7%) did not know exactly what a resident was, although 132 (60%) said he/she was a doctor. Knowledge increased with greater educational level (P< .001) and younger age (P=.04). Eighty-five (38.6%) demanded more from the tutor and tolerated errors of both equally; 196 (89.1%) were calm on being seen by a resident; 203 (92.3%) said they had the same trust in both. They noted no changes in the tutor when the resident was present (206; 93.6%). They wanted to change the same things in both (kappa=0.518). Patients were satisfied or very satisfied: 212 (96.4%), with the time that the doctor devoted to him/her with the resident present; 194 (88.2%), with having 2 doctors; and 214 (97.3%), with the attention and listening of the resident. Finally, 163 (74.1%) would recommend the resident as a doctor.
conclusionsMost patients do not know exactly what a FCM resident is or does. They believe that the presence of the resident does not affect the consultation with the tutor. Trust and tolerance is similar. Satisfaction with the care received is high.
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.