ArticleMedizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983)2009
[The stable patient collective as a potential pitfall of prospective primary health-care studies. A qualitative inquiry among general practitioners].
Article in Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Gaining information about home visits in primary care: methodological issues from a feasibility study.BMC family practice · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeTransparency and disclosure of problems in primary health-care studies can add enormous information to the planning and conduction of such studies. By means of the inquiry of study participants, important data on study problems can be found out. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to identify the causes of unexpected results of an intervention study in general practitioners' (GPs) practices by means of an inquiry of the participating GPs. The very study was about diagnosing alcohol- related health disorders at two points of time 1 year apart each with 2,400 primary health-care patients.
methods39 of the 43 participating GPs of the study mentioned were asked by telephone about the possible causes of the unexpected study results. Data analysis was conducted according to the Qualitative Content Analysis of Philipp Mayring.
resultsThe GPs mentioned problems that are already described in the international literature: the high expenses for study documentation, tabooed health topics, and declining participation motivation at the end of the study. A further cause of the unexpected study results was picked up: the repeated patient recruitment of this intervention study. It was unclear for the GPs whether they could include the same patients at the first and second recruitment point of time. Moreover, one main reason for the unexpected study results seems to be the stable patient collective of GPs' practices; according to that, only few new patients could be included at the second time point of recruitment.
conclusionIn primary health-care research requiring several time points for patient recruitment, one has to consider potential tabooed health topics and the special situation in primary health-care practices. This situation is characterized by a stable amount of known patients, even over years. The here-discussed causes of recruitment problems might be essential to avoid selection bias in primary health-care studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19856149What 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.