ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2014
A qualitative study on working experience of rural doctors in malappuram district of kerala, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parliamentarily speaking: A thematic analysis of Kerala Legislative Assembly questions relating to health from 2016 to 2021.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2024Article
- Of primary health care reforms and pandemic responses: understanding perspectives of health system actors in Kerala before and during COVID-19.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Community-based Mobile Cervical Cancer Screening Program in Rural India: Successes and Challenges for Implementation.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2021Article
- Community perspectives on primary health centers in rural Maharashtra: What can we learn for policy?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2019Article
- Further strategies to improve the working experience of rural doctors.Journal of family medicine and primary careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving the working conditions of rural doctors is an important issue to increase the quality of health services to target groups.
objectivesTo assess the working experience of rural doctors at primary health care level. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis qualitative study was conducted among 30 medical officers from 21 primary health centers in Malappuram district of Kerala, India. In-depth interview was conducted, and content analysis was performed with the identification of themes based on the responses obtained.
resultsThere were 19 males and 11 females belonged to 25 to 55 years age group. About 70% (21) of them were graduates with MBBS qualification, and the rest were postgraduates. About 2/3(rd) of them (20) had experience of less than 5 years. They expressed difficulty in managing the work in stipulated time period. However, this had never affected their OP management in anyway. They told that higher authorities were supportive, but they faced some opposition from the public in implementation of national program. Few opined that the training received was grossly insufficient in running the administrative affairs of the health center. Most of them satisfied with physical infrastructure, but manpower including medical officers and supporting staff were not sufficient. Some opined that the age of retirement is too early and should be increased. They participated in Continuing Medical Education, but expressed that it's content should suit to primary health care level.
conclusionThis study highlighted their concern to patient care and time, field work, administrative work, infrastructure, professional development, and future prospects. Further large scale evaluation studies will explore the situational analysis of it.
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.