Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26631138›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

Process quality indicators in family medicine: results of an international comparison.

Danica Rotar Pavlič, Maja Sever, Zalika Klemenc-Ketiš, Igor Švab

Abstract readComparative Study
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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Quality indicator framework for primary care of patients with dementia.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  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.

Danica Rotar PavličDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. danica.rotar@guest.arnes.si.
Maja SeverStatistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, Litostrojska 54, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. maja.sever1@gmail.com.
Zalika Klemenc-KetišDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. zalika.klemenc.ketis@gmail.com.
Igor ŠvabDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Poljanski nasip 58, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. igor.svab@mf.uni-lj.si.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of our study was to describe variability in process quality in family medicine among 31 European countries plus Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The quality of family medicine was measured in terms of continuity, coordination, community orientation, and comprehensiveness of care.

methodsThe QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe) was carried out among family physicians in 31 European countries (the EU 27 except for France, plus Macedonia, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey) and three non-European countries (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand). We used random sampling when national registers of practitioners were available. Regional registers or lists of facilities were used for some countries. A standardized questionnaire was distributed to the physicians, resulting in a sample of 6734 participants. Data collection took place between October 2011 and December 2013. Based on completed questionnaires, a three-dimensional framework was established to measure continuity, coordination, community orientation, and comprehensiveness of care. Multilevel linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the variation of quality attributable to the family physician level and the country level.

resultsNone of the 34 countries in this study consistently scored the best or worst in all categories. Continuity of care was perceived by family physicians as the most important dimension of quality. Some components of comprehensiveness of care, including medical technical procedures, preventive care and health care promotion, varied substantially between countries. Coordination of care was identified as the weakest part of quality. We found that physician-level characteristics contributed to the majority of variation.

conclusionsA comparison of process quality indicators in family medicine revealed similarities and differences within and between countries. The researchers found that the major proportion of variation can be explained by physicians' characteristics.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAustraliaCanadaContinuity of Patient CareEuropeFamily PracticeHumansNew ZealandPhysicians, FamilyQuality of Health CareSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26631138
PMCPMC4667500

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.