Observational studyIrish journal of medical science2015
An observational study of public and private general practitioner consultations in the Republic of Ireland.
Observational study in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What are the most common conditions in primary care? Systematic review.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Pooled it
- Experience of Lifetime Health Maintenance Program: An Observational Study of a 30-Year Period of Outpatient Primary Care in a Tertiary Hospital.Korean journal of family medicine · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe reasons why patients visit their general practitioner (GP) is vital information for fund holders and policy makers. GP consultations in the Republic of Ireland are either paid by the patient on a fee-per-service basis (private patients) or by the state [general medical service (GMS) card holders], and information related to primary care consultations is limited.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct an observational study of GMS and private consultations within general practice in Ireland.
designThis is a cross-sectional study of general practitioner consultations.
methodsGPs within existing Continued Medical Education (CME) groups were invited to participate. Participating GPs gathered data on 100 consecutive consultations between September 2008 and April 2010.
resultsThere were 16,899 consultations recorded; 53.8 % (9,095) were GMS patients. Patients ≥65 years accounted for 23.69 % of consultations (n = 3,822). Respiratory illnesses accounted for the highest proportion of consultations (3,886, 23.0 %), followed by routine check-ups (15.4 %). GMS patients were more likely to consult for a repeat prescription (OR = 4.04, 95 % CI 2.93-5.57) and were also more likely to consult to review their treatment (OR = 2.33, 95 % CI 1.68-3.22) compared to private patients.
conclusionThis study displays the consultation behaviour of patients in Ireland. It suggests that inequalities may exist in access to primary care services in ROI; however, more research is required to examine this further. There is insufficient information available on primary healthcare utilisation. Key issues such as the lack of unique patient identifiers and the lack of extractable data from GP practices in ROI need to be addressed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24554205What 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.