ArticleBMC family practice2015
Patient and practitioners' views on the most important outcomes arising from primary care consultations: a qualitative study.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review.BMC family practice · 2018Pooled it
- Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Review
- Examining utility and feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures in occupational therapy primary care practice.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2022Article
- Perceived Barriers to Treatment in Persons Treated for Functional Gastrointestinal Disease with Constipation.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Relational continuity and patients' perception of GP trust and respect: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- KLOSURE: Closing in on open-ended patient questionnaires with text mining.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2019Article
- Patient understanding of two commonly used patient reported outcome measures for primary care: a cognitive interview study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire: psychometric testing of a new instrument.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Atomic data: James Mackenzie Lecture 2015.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Consequently, many researchers use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of primary care services. In order to identify what outcomes a PROM for primary care would need to include, we conducted interviews with patients and practitioners. This paper reports these patient and practitioners' views on the outcomes arising from primary care consultations.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were held with 30 patients and eight clinicians across five sites in Bristol. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. We used a broad definition of health outcome as 'the impacts of healthcare on health, or a patient's ability to impact health' to identify outcomes through this process.
results10 outcome groups were identified. These occupied 3 domains: Health Empowerment: These are the internal and external resources which enable patients to improve their health. This involves 1) patients' understanding of their illnesses, 2) ability to self-care and stay healthy, 3) agreeing and adhering to a patient-clinician shared plan, 4) confidence in seeking healthcare and 5) access to support. Health Status: This involves 6) reduction of symptoms and 7) reducing the impact of symptoms on patients' lives. Health Perceptions: This involves 8) patients' satisfaction with their health, 9) health concerns, and 10) confidence in their future health. The structure, organisation and nature of primary care means it can affect all 3 domains.
conclusionsNo existing PROM captures all these outcomes. For example, many health empowerment PROMs do not consider patient preference on empowerment. Many health status tools are not responsive to changes resulting from primary care. Health perceptions PROMs have generally been designed for measuring personality traits rather than outcomes. This study provides a platform for designing a new PROM containing outcomes that matter to patients and can be influenced by primary care. Such a PROM would greatly enhance the value of primary care research.
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.