Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27560697›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Interventions to increase or decrease the length of primary care physicians' consultation.

Andrew D Wilson, Susan Childs, Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley, Greg J Irving

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. It's about time: redesigning consultation length in general practice.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment: time to drop 10 minutes as standard?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew D WilsonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, Leicestershire, UK, LE1 7RH.
Susan Childs
Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley
Greg J Irving

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational studies have shown differences in process and outcome between the consultations of primary care physicians whose average consultation lengths differ. These differences may be due to self selection. This is the first update of the original review.

objectivesTo assess the effects of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following electronic databases until 4 January 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using agreed criteria and resolved disagreements by discussion. We attempted to contact authors of primary studies with missing data. Given the heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes using the GRADE approach and have presented the results in a narrative summary. MAIN

resultsFive studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesOffice VisitsTime FactorsFamily PracticeHealth PromotionHumansPatient SatisfactionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID27560697
PMCPMC7154578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.