Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23181453›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2012

Setting priorities in primary health care--on whose conditions? A questionnaire study.

Eva Arvidsson, Malin André, Lars Borgquist, David Andersson, Per Carlsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Rethinking screening during and after COVID-19: Should things ever be the same again?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. What Factors Do Allied Health Take Into Account When Making Resource Allocation Decisions?International journal of health policy and management · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Eva ArvidssonDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, National Centre for Priority Setting in Health Care, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden. eva.arvidsson@ltkalmar.se
Malin André
Lars Borgquist
David Andersson
Per Carlsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Sweden three key criteria are used for priority setting: severity of the health condition; patient benefit; and cost-effectiveness. They are derived from the ethical principles established by the Swedish parliament 1997 but have been used only to a limited extent in primary care. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse: 1) GPs', nurses', and patients' prioritising in routine primary care 2) The association between the three key priority setting criteria and the overall priority assigned by the GPs and nurses to individual patients.

methodsPaired questionnaires were distributed to all patients and the GPs or nurses they had contact with during a 2-week period at four health centres in Sweden. The staff registered the health conditions or health problem, and the planned intervention. Then they estimated the severity of the health condition, the expected patient benefit, and the cost-effectiveness of the planned intervention. Both the staff and the patients reported their overall prioritisation of the patient. In total, 1851 paired questionnaires were collected.

resultsCompared to the medical staff, the patients assigned relatively higher priority to acute/minor conditions than to preventive check-ups for chronic conditions. Severity of the health condition was the priority setting criterion that had the strongest association with the overall priority for the staff as a whole, but for the GPs it was cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsThe challenge for primary care providers is to balance the patients' demands with medical needs and cost-effectiveness. Transparent priority setting in primary care might contribute to a greater consensus between GPs and nurses on how to use the key priority setting criteria.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthHealth PrioritiesPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesAcute DiseaseAgedAmbulatory CareChronic DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisDisease ManagementFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPreventive Health Services

Identifiers

PMID23181453
PMCPMC3528614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.