ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2013
Family practice versus specialist care for low-risk obstetrics: examining patient satisfaction in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Le paysage changeant des soins obstétricaux au Canada.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada : JOGC · 2020Article
- A glimpse of the future.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate patient satisfaction with 3 models of low-risk obstetrics care: solo care by a GP, group care by GPs, and specialist care.
designThree-arm study comparing results of a self-administered, anonymous questionnaire.
settingTwo academic family practices and the labour and delivery ward in St John's, Nfld.
participantsA total of 220 women deemed to have low-risk pregnancies; 82 women completed the questionnaire (37% response rate).
main outcome measuresPatient satisfaction scores obtained from a modified version of the Patient Expectations and Satisfaction with Prenatal Care instrument.
resultsLow-risk maternity patients' satisfaction with obstetric care provided by GPs in a group-care setting was equivalent to that with obstetric care provided by GPs working solo and greater than that with obstetric care provided by specialists.
conclusionPatients found that group care by GPs was an acceptable means of receiving obstetric services in a low-risk setting. Therefore, a group practice model might provide an attractive means for FPs to keep obstetrics within the scope of primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24130300PMC3796992What 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.