Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26245953›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Collaboration of general practitioners and exercise providers in promotion of physical activity a written survey among general practitioners.

C J Leemrijse, D H de Bakker, L Ooms, C Veenhof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Physical Activity Promotion: A Systematic Review of The Perceptions of Healthcare Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

C J LeemrijseNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Department of Local Organization of Care, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands. C.Leemrijse@nivel.nl.
D H de BakkerTilburg University Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands. D.deBakker@nivel.nl.
L OomsStichting Onbeperkt Sportief, PO Box 200, 3980 CE, Bunnik, The Netherlands. LOoms@onbeperktsportief.nl.
C VeenhofDepartment of Rehabilitation, Nursing Science & Sport, University Medical Center Utrecht, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. C.Veenhof-2@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practitioners have an ideal position to motivate inactive patients to increase their physical activity. Most patients are able to exercise in regular local facilities outside the health care setting. The purpose of this study was to get insight into general practitioners perceptions and current practices regarding referral of patients to local exercise facilities. Furthermore, collaboration with exercise providers in the community was investigated, and motivators and barriers for referral.

methodsA written questionnaire sent to a representative random sample of 800 Dutch general practitioners. Descriptive statistics and Chi(2) tests were used.

resultsAll responding general practitioners (340) recommend their patients to take more exercise when necessary and 87 % say to refer patients sometimes. Limited motivation of the patient (44 %) and reduced health status (34 %) are the most mentioned barriers for advising patients to increase physical activity. When referred, most patients are send to a physical therapist (69 %) but also local exercise facilities were mentioned (54 %). The most important barrier for referring patients to local exercise activities are patients limited financial possibilities (46 %). Restricted knowledge of local exercise- or sport facilities was an additional barrier (19 %). There is little structural collaboration between general practitioners and exercise providers, but when collaboration exists general practitioners refer more often. Positive experiences of patients (67 %), affordable offers (59 %) and information of local exercise facilities (46 %) are seen as important promoting factors for referral. Although 32 % of the general practitioners think that good collaboration would be stimulating, regular meetings with sports and exercise providers were considered the least important for increasing referral (3 %).

conclusionsDutch physicians have a positive attitude towards stimulating physical activity but referral to local exercise facilities is low. Referral is partly hindered by restricted knowledge of local exercise facilities. Although general practitioners think that collaboration is important for physical activity promotion, it should not cost them much extra time. A coordinator with knowledge of the local situation can facilitate contacts between GP practices and sports providers.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorExerciseFitness CentersInterprofessional RelationsAdultAgedFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsReferral and ConsultationSports

Identifiers

PMID26245953
PMCPMC4527276

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.