Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23959757›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2013

Do men consult less than women? An analysis of routinely collected UK general practice data.

Yingying Wang, Kate Hunt, Irwin Nazareth, Nick Freemantle, Irene Petersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 310 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
310citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
26.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

310 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 599 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. ONS Health Insight Survey in general practice: insight, not oversight.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

250 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yingying WangMRC|CSO Social & Public Health Science Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Kate Hunt
Irwin Nazareth
Nick Freemantle
Irene Petersen
University College London · GBMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U130059811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether gender differences in primary care consultation rates (1) vary by age and deprivation status and (2) diminish when consultation for reproductive reasons or common underlying morbidities are accounted for.

designCross-sectional study of a cohort of patients registered with general practice.

settingUK primary care. SUBJECTS: Patients (1 869 149 men and 1 916 898 women) registered with 446 eligible practices in 2010. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care consultation rate.

resultsThis study analyses routinely collected primary care consultation data. The crude consultation rate was 32% lower in men than women. The magnitude of gender difference varied across the life course, and there was no 'excess' female consulting in early and later life. The greatest gender gap in primary care consultations was seen among those aged between 16 and 60 years. Gender differences in consulting were higher in people from more deprived areas than among those from more affluent areas. Accounting for reproductive-related consultations diminished but did not eradicate the gender gap. However, consultation rates in men and women who had comparable underlying morbidities (as assessed by receipt of medication) were similar; men in receipt of antidepressant medication were only 8% less likely to consult than women in receipt of antidepressant medication (relative risk (RR) 0.916, 95% CI 0.913 to 0.918), and men in receipt of medication to treat cardiovascular disease were just 5% less likely to consult (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.948 to 0.952) than women receiving similar medication. These small gender differences diminished further, particularly for depression (RR=0.950, 95% CI 0.947 to 0.953), after also taking account of reproductive consultations.

conclusionsOverall gender differences in consulting are most marked between the ages of 16 and 60 years; these differences are only partially accounted for by consultations for reproductive reasons. Differences in consultation rates between men and women were largely eradicated when comparing men and women in receipt of medication for similar underlying morbidities.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyHealth Services Administration & ManagementPrimary CareSocial Medicine

Identifiers

PMID23959757
PMCPMC3753483
OpenAlexW2161175062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.