ArticleBMC family practice2013
Are family practice trainers and their host practices any better? Comparing practice trainers and non-trainers and their practices.
Article in BMC family practice, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of improvement plans in primary care practice accreditation: a clustered randomized trial.PloS one · 2014Trial
- Outreach work in Belgian primary care practices during COVID-19: results from the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Safety Culture and the Positive Association of Being a Primary Care Training Practice during COVID-19: The Results of the Multi-Country European PRICOV-19 Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Association Between Panel Size and Health Outcomes of Patients with Hypertension in Urban China: a Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- How many medications do doctors in primary care use? An observational study of the DU90% indicator in primary care in England.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- Is there an association between socioeconomic status of General Practice population and postgraduate training practice accreditation? A cross-sectional analysis of Scottish General Practices.Family practice · 2020Article
- Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice: An observational study.PloS one · 2017Observational
- Patient experiences with family medicine: a longitudinal study after the Dutch health care reforms in 2006.BMC family practice · 2016Article
- Comparison of French training and non-training general practices: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2016Article
- Determinants of impact of a practice accreditation program in primary care: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2015Article
- Effect of accreditation on the quality of chronic disease management: a comparative observational study.BMC family practice · 2014Observational
- Patient experience and the role of postgraduate GP training: a cross-sectional analysis of national Patient Survey data in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
- Is 'practice size' the key to quality of care?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013Article
- Does Pre-Survey Training Impact Knowledge of Survey Administrators and Survey Outcomes in Developing Countries? Evaluation Findings of a Training of Trainers Workshop for National AIDS and Reproductive Health Survey-Plus in Nigeria.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily Physician (FP) trainees are expected to be provided with high quality training in well organized practice settings. This study examines differences between FP trainers and non-trainers and their practices to see whether there are differences in trainers and non-trainers and in how their practices are organized and their services are delivered.
method203 practices (88 non-training and 115 training) with 512 FPs (335 non-trainers and 177 trainers) were assessed using the "Visit Instrument Practice organization (VIP)" on 369 items (142 FP-level; 227 Practice level). Analyses (ANOVA, ANCOVA) were conducted for each level by calculating differences between FP trainees and non-trainees and their host practices.
resultsTrainers scored higher on all but one of the items, and significantly higher on 47 items, of which 13 remained significant after correcting for covariates. Training practices scored higher on all items and significantly higher on 61 items, of which 23 remained significant after correcting for covariates. Trainers (and training practices) provided more diagnostic and therapeutic services, made better use of team skills and scored higher on practice organization, chronic care services and quality management than non-training practices. Trainers reported more job satisfaction and commitment and less job stress than non-trainers. DISCUSSION: There are positive differences between FP trainers and non-trainers in both the level and the quality of services provided by their host practices. Training institutions can use this information to promote the advantages of becoming a FP trainer and training practice as well as to improve the quality of training settings for FPs.
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.