ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2014
The 'added value' GPs bring to commissioning: a qualitative study in primary care.
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 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.
- Primary care practitioners' priorities for improving the timeliness of cancer diagnosis in primary care: a European cluster-based analysis.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Commissioning care for people with dementia at the end of life: a mixed-methods study.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Article
- An exploratory analysis of the nature of informal knowledge underlying theories of planned action used for public health oriented knowledge translation.BMC research notes · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England replaced primary care trusts with clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) as the main purchasing organisations. These new organisations are GP-led, and it was claimed that this increased clinical input would significantly improve commissioning practice.
aimTo explore some of the key assumptions underpinning CCGs, and to examine the claim that GPs bring 'added value' to commissioning. DESIGN AND
settingIn-depth interviews with clinicians and managers across seven CCGs in England between April and September 2013.
methodA total of 40 clinicians and managers were interviewed. Interviews focused on the perceived 'added value' that GPs bring to commissioning.
resultsClaims to GP 'added value' centred on their intimate knowledge of their patients. It was argued that this detailed and concrete knowledge improves service design and that a close working relationship between GPs and managers strengthens the ability of managers to negotiate. However, responders also expressed concerns about the large workload that they face and about the difficulty in engaging with the wider body of GPs.
conclusionGPs have been involved in commissioning in many ways since fundholding in the 1990s, and claims such as these are not new. The key question is whether these new organisations better support and enable the effective use of this knowledge. Furthermore, emphasis on experiential knowledge brings with it concerns about representativeness and the extent to which other voices are heard. Finally, the implicit privileging of GPs' personal knowledge ahead of systematic public health intelligence also requires exploration.
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.