ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011
Attracting and retaining GPs: a stakeholder survey of priorities.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients' perceptions of continuity of care across primary care level and emergency departments in Belgium: cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Interprofessional Collaboration between General Physicians and Emergency Department Teams in Belgium: A Qualitative Study.International journal of integrated care · 2017Article
- Assessment of the priority target group of mental health service networks within a nation-wide reform of adult psychiatry in Belgium.BMC health services research · 2016Observational
- Future-proofing primary health care: GP recruitment and retention in the new NHS.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite being a key player in the healthcare system, training and practising general practice has become less attractive in many countries and is in need of reform.
aimTo identify political priorities for improving GPs' attraction to the profession and their retention within it. DESIGN AND
settingStakeholder face-to-face survey in Belgium, 2008.
methodA total of 102 key stakeholders were recruited from policymakers, professional groups, academia, GP leaders, and the media. All interviewees were asked to score 23 policies on four criteria: effectiveness in attracting and retaining GPs, cost to society, acceptance by other health professionals, and accessibility of care. An overall performance score was computed (from -3 to +3) for each type of policy - training, financing, work-life balance, practice organisation, and governance - and for innovative versus conservative policies.
resultsPractice organisation policies and training policies received the highest scores (mean score ≥ 1.11). Financing policies, governance, and work-life balance policies scored poorly (mean score ≤ 0.65) because they had negative effects, particularly in relation to cost, acceptance, and accessibility of care. Stakeholders were keen on moving GPs towards team work, improving their role as care coordinator, and helping them to offload administrative tasks (score ≥ 1.4). They also favoured moves to increase the early and integrated exposure of all medical students to general practice. Overall, conservative policies were better scored than innovative ones (beta = -0.16, 95% confidence interval = -0.28 to -0.03).
conclusionThe reforming of general practice is made difficult by the small-step approach, as well as the importance of decision criteria related to cost, acceptance, and access.
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.