ArticleBMJ open2012
Covert checks by standardised patients of general practitioners' delivery of new periodic health examinations: clustered cross-sectional study from a consumer organisation.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess if data collected by a consumer organisation are valid for a health service research study on physicians' performance in preventive care. To report first results of the analysis of physicians performance like consultation time and guideline adherence in history taking.
designSecondary data analysis of a clustered cross-sectional direct observation survey.
settingGeneral practitioners (GPs) in Vienna, Austria, visited unannounced by mystery shoppers (incognito standardised patients (ISPs)).
participants21 randomly selected GPs were visited by two different ISPs each. 40 observation protocols were realised.
main outcome measuresRobustness of sampling and data collection by the consumer organisation. GPs consultation and waiting times, guideline adherence in history taking.
resultsThe double stratified random sampling method was robust and representative for the private and contracted GPs mix of Vienna. The clinical scenarios presented by the ISPs were valid and believable, and no GP realised the ISPs were not genuine patients. The average consultation time was 46 min (95% CI 37 to 54 min). Waiting times differed more than consultation times between private and contracted GPs. No differences between private and contracted GPs in terms of adherence to the evidence-based guidelines regarding history taking including questions regarding alcohol use were found. According to the analysis, 20% of the GPs took a perfect history (95% CI 9% to 39%).
conclusionsThe analysis of secondary data collected by a consumer organisation was a valid method for drawing conclusions about GPs preventive practice. Initial results, like consultation times longer than anticipated, and the moderate quality of history taking encourage continuing the analysis on available clinical data.
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.