ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014
Primary care evidence in clinical guidelines: a mixed methods study of practitioners' views.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Outcomes of guidelines from health technology assessment organizations in community-based primary care: a systematic mixed studies review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2024Pooled it
- Role of General Practitioners in European Health Technology Assessment, EU-HTA Innovation in Oncology as an Example.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Article
- Building capacity in the academic general practice research workforce.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- A scoping review of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practice professional organizations.Family practice · 2024Article
- Documentary analysis of national and international guidance for community clinicians referring patients with suspected chronic limb-threatening ischaemia.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Supporting family carers in general practice: a scoping review of clinical guidelines and recommendations.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Knowledge mobilization for primary care: Lessons learned from 40 years of the Rourke Baby Record.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022Article
- Article
- Reorganisation of GP surgeries during the COVID-19 outbreak: analysis of guidelines from 15 countries.BMC family practice · 2021Article
- GPs' use of gut feelings when assessing cancer risk: a qualitative study in UK primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021Article
- A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance and guidelines published by general practitioner professional organisations.HRB open research · 2021Article
- Understanding factors influencing venous leg ulcer guideline implementation in Australian primary care.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Pharmaceutical companies information and antibiotic prescription patterns: A follow-up study in Spanish primary care.PloS one · 2019Article
- Osteoporosis prevention: Where are the barriers to improvement in French general practitioners? A qualitative study.PloS one · 2019Article
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
Abstract
backgroundClinical practice guidelines are widely used in primary care, yet are not always based on applicable research.
aimTo explore primary care practitioners' views on the applicability to primary care patients of evidence underpinning National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline recommendations. DESIGN AND
settingDelphi survey and focus groups in primary care, England, UK.
methodDelphi survey of the perceived applicability of 14 guideline recommendations rated before and after a description of their evidence base, followed by two focus groups.
resultsGPs significantly reduced scores for their perceived likelihood of pursuing recommendations after finding these were based on studies with low applicability to primary care, but maintained their scores for recommendations based on highly applicable research. GPs reported they were more likely to use guidelines where evidence was applicable to primary care, and less likely if the evidence base came from a secondary care population. Practitioners in the focus groups accepted that guideline developers would use the most relevant evidence available, but wanted clearer signposting of those recommendations particularly relevant for primary care patients. Their main need was for brief, clear, and accessible guidelines.
conclusionGuidelines should specify the extent to which the research evidence underpinning each recommendation is applicable to primary care. The relevance of guideline recommendations to primary care populations could be more explicitly considered at all three stages of guideline development: scoping and evidence synthesis, recommendation development, and publication. The relevant evidence base needs to be presented clearly and concisely, and in an easy to identify way.
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.