ArticleIrish journal of medical science2016
70,489 primary care encounters: retrospective analysis of morbidity at a primary care centre in Ireland.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence, aetiologies and prognosis of the symptom cough in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC family practice · 2021Pooled it
- Coughing children in family practice and primary care: a systematic review of prevalence, aetiology and prognosis.BMC pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- The identification of primary care consultation visits for otitis media: development of a software algorithm screening tool.Primary health care research & development · 2026Article
- Investigating the leading reasons for primary health care encounters and its implications for health care in Trinidad and Tobago. A systematic review.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2022Review
- Article
- Empirically derived weights for GMS capitation payments to General Practitioners.Irish journal of medical science · 2017Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile considerable changes are happening in primary care in Ireland and considerable potential exists in intelligence derived from practice-based data to inform these changes, relatively few large-scale general morbidity surveys have been published.
aimsTo examine the most common reasons why people attend primary care, specifically 'reasons for encounter' (RFEs) among the general practice population and among specific demographic groups (i.e., young children and older adults).
methodsWe retrospectively examined clinical encounters (which had a diagnostic code) over a 4-year time period. Descriptive analyses were conducted on anonymised data.
results70,489 RFEs consultations were recorded (mean 13.53 recorded RFEs per person per annum) and consultations involving multiple RFEs were common. RFE categories for which codes were most commonly recorded were: 'general/unspecified' (31.6 %), 'respiratory' (15.4 %) and 'musculoskeletal' (12.6 %). Most commonly recorded codes were: 'medication renewal' (6.8 %), 'cough' (6.6 %), and 'health maintenance/prevention' (5.8 %). There was considerable variation in the number of RFEs recorded per age group. 6239 RFEs (8.9 %) were recorded by children under 6 years and 15,295 RFEs (21.7 %) were recorded by adults aged over 70. RFEs recorded per calendar month increased consistently through the study period and there was a marked seasonal and temporal variation in the number of RFEs recorded.
conclusionsPractice databases can generate intelligence on morbidity and health service utilisation in the community. Future research to optimise diagnostic coding at a practice level and to promote this activity in a more representative sample of practices is a priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26584550What 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.