Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23819049›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of family medicine2013

Family Doctors Seen through the Eyes of Specialists: A Qualitative Study.

Anna Probst, Iris Natanzon, Joachim Szecsenyi, Stefanie Joos

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of family medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The image of general practice: the revolution begins.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna ProbstDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Voßstraße 2, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany ; Competence Center General Practice, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Iris Natanzon
Joachim Szecsenyi
Stefanie Joos
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Germany is facing a shortage of young family doctors. In search of possible reasons the aim of this study was to explore the perception of specialists on family doctors. Within a qualitative study 16 medical specialists from different fields in hospital and outpatient care setting were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Most of the interviewed specialists have a positive view on family doctors although a certain depreciative assumption is resonated in a number of statements. According to the specialists, family doctors enjoy a high status in public, even if social processes of change may have a negative influence on their rather old-fashioned image. Specialists find that family medicine is underrepresented in university education suffering from an upgrading of specialized disciplines. Altogether the majority of the interviewed specialists certify family doctors in Germany a positive image. Lecturer in medical education and training should be aware of their key role in the career choices of young trainees and avoid degradation or upgrading of certain medical disciplines. Interlinked measures on different levels focusing on the improvement of working conditions and representation at the universities would be needed to regain attractiveness for the family doctor's profession as a career choice for young doctors.

Identifiers

PMID23819049
PMCPMC3684095
OpenAlexW2145988660

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.