ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2012
Experience of contractual change in UK general practice: a qualitative study of salaried GPs.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of Pay-for-Performance in Practice: A Qualitative Metasynthesis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingPooled it
- A pay for performance scheme in primary care: Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on the provider experiences of the quality and outcomes framework in the UK.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Private or salaried practice: how do young general practitioners make their career choice? A qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practice in the UK underwent major change in 2004, with the introduction of new contracts and a significant element of pay for performance. Although salaried GPs form an increasing proportion of the general practice workforce, little is known of their experiences.
aimTo explore the views and experiences of salaried GPs working in English general practice. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews in 17 practices across England, between July 2007 and September 2009.
methodInterviews were conducted with 23 salaried GPs. A topic guide included questions on motivations for a career in general practice, descriptions of their daily working environment and duties, practice relationships, and future aspirations.
resultsThe new ability to opt out of out-of-hours responsibilities was deemed positive for the profession but not a major driver for choosing medical speciality. Views regarding the impact of the Quality and Outcomes Framework were ambivalent. Differences in pay were regarded as largely reflective of differences in responsibility between salaried GPs and principals. Most participants reported conducting varied work in collaborative practices. Participants held varying career aspirations.
conclusionSalaried GPs' working experiences were dependent upon personal aspirations and local context. Most salaried GPs were reportedly content with their current position but many also had aspirations of eventually attaining GP principal status. The current lack of available partnerships threatens to undo recent positive workforce progress and may lead to deep dissatisfaction within the profession and a future workforce crisis. Further large-scale quantitative work is required to assess the satisfaction and future expectations of those in salaried posts.
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.