ArticleBMC family practice2011
General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations.
Article in BMC family practice, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Pooled it
- Exploring the impact and use of patients' feedback about their care experiences in general practice settings-a realist synthesis.Family practice · 2018Pooled it
- Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Pooled it
- Multi-professional primary healthcare centres: psychometric testing of a new quality-of-care instrument.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Feedback reports to the general practitioner (GP) on the patients' experiences: are GPs interested, and is this interest associated with GP factors and patient experience scores?Family practice · 2023Article
- Made to Measure: The Ethics of Routine Measurement for Healthcare Improvement.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2021Article
- Independent and Web-Based Advice for Infertile Patients Using Fertility Consult: Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2019Article
- The Norwegian patient experiences with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP): reliability and construct validity following a national survey.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Understanding and Using Patient Experience Feedback to Improve Health Care Quality: Systematic Review and Framework Development.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2017Review
- Physicians' perceptions about the quality of primary health care services in transitional Albania.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2015Article
- Public assessment of key performance indicators of healthcare in a Canadian province: the effect of age and chronic health problems.SpringerPlus · 2014Article
- Challenges to the credibility of patient feedback in primary healthcare settings: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process.
methodsA patient evaluation survey of 597 voluntarily participating GPs was performed by means of the EUROPEP questionnaire. Evaluation results were fed back to the GPs as written reports at a single feedback meeting with group discussions of the results. Between 3 and 17 months after the feedback, the 597 GPs received a questionnaire with items addressing their experience with and perceived benefit from the evaluations.
results79.4% of the GPs responded. 33% of the responding GPs reported that the patient evaluation had raised their attention to the patient perspective on the quality of general practice care. Job satisfaction had improved among 26%, and 21% had developed a more positive attitude to patient evaluations. 77% of the GPs reported having learnt from the evaluation. 54% had made changes to improve practice, 82% would recommend a patient evaluation to a colleague and 75% would do another patient evaluation if invited. 14% of the GPs had become less positive towards patient evaluations, and job satisfaction had decreased among 3%.
conclusionsWe found a significant impact on the GPs regarding satisfaction with the process and attitude towards patient evaluations, GPs' attention to the patients' perspective on care quality and their job satisfaction. Being benchmarked against the average seemed to raise barriers to the concept of patient evaluations and difficulties interpreting the results may have formed a barrier to their implementation which was partly overcome by adding qualitative data to the quantitative results. The GPs' significant willingness to share and discuss the results with others may have served as a facilitator.
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.