Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25431547›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of ageing2014

What do older people value when they visit their general practitioner? A qualitative study.

Ludmila Marcinowicz, Teresa Pawlikowska, Marek Oleszczyk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of ageing, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. How does it feel to be a problem? Patients' experiences of self-management support in New Zealand and Canada.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ludmila MarcinowiczDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Nursing, Medical University of Bialystok, Mieszka I 4 B, 15 054 Białystok, Poland.
Teresa PawlikowskaHealth Professions Education Centre, RCSI, Dublin, Ireland.
Marek OleszczykDepartment of Family Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Older patients see their general practitioners (GPs) relatively often and so recognition of their preferences can lead to improvement of quality of care in general practice. This study aimed to identify which aspects of GPs' behaviour are the most important for older people in their assessment of the quality of their visits and to explore the application of Jung's taxonomy differentiating task and affective behaviour in this context. A qualitative approach to generating data was chosen. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a sample of 30 patients aged 65 and older using GP services in two demographically diverse big cities in Poland. Participants were interviewed in 2010 according to a pre-determined topic guide. This research showed that older people assess both 'task performance' and 'affective performance' behaviours of general practitioners. There were nearly twice as many patient comments concerning affective performance behaviour relative to task performance behaviour. Older people expect that their physicians will be demonstrably friendly, kind, able to joke and have enough time for the consultation.

Indexed as

Doctor–patient relationsOlder patientsPrimary careQualitative researchQuality of care

Identifiers

PMID25431547
PMCPMC4240907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.