Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27899090›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2016

Relations between task delegation and job satisfaction in general practice: a systematic literature review.

Helle Riisgaard, Jørgen Nexøe, Jette V Le, Jens Søndergaard, Loni Ledderer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Grassroots development of interprofessional primary care teams: a qualitative study in Canadian family practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Ensuring primary care in Germany-findings from a quantitative survey of general practitioners].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Job stress among GPs: associations with practice organisation in 11 high-income countries.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  15. 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

5 authors.

Helle RiisgaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark. hriisgaard@health.sdu.dk.
Jørgen NexøeResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Jette V LeResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Jens SøndergaardResearch Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, 5000, Odense C, Denmark.
Loni LeddererSection of Health Promotion and Health Services, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, building 1260, 225, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has for years been discussed whether practice staff should be involved in patient care in general practice to a higher extent. The research concerning task delegation within general practice is generally increasing, but the literature focusing on its influence on general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction appears to be sparse even though job satisfaction is acknowledged as an important factor associated with both patient satisfaction and medical quality of care. Therefore, the overall aim of this study was 1) to review the current research on the relation between task delegation and general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction and, additionally, 2) to review the evidence of possible explanations for this relation.

methodsA systematic literature review. We searched the four databases PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, and Scopus systematically. The immediate relevance of the retrieved articles was evaluated by title and abstract by the first author, and papers that seemed to meet the aim of the review were then fully read by first author and last author independently judging the eligibility of content.

resultsWe included four studies in the review. They explored views and attitudes of the staff, encompassing nurses as well as practice managers. Only one of the included studies also explored general practitioners' views and attitudes, hence making it impossible to establish any syntheses on this relation. According to the studies, the staff's overall attitude towards task delegation was positive and led to increased job satisfaction, probably because task delegation comprised a high degree of work autonomy.

conclusionsThe few studies included in our review suggest that task delegation within general practice may be seen by the staff as an overall positive issue contributing to their job satisfaction, primarily due to perceived autonomy in the work. However, because of the small sample size comprising only qualitative studies, and due to the heterogeneity of these studies, we cannot draw unambiguous conclusions although we point towards tendencies.

Indexed as

Job SatisfactionAdministrative PersonnelAttitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PracticeHumansNursesPhysiciansProfessional RoleGeneral practiceJob satisfactionNurse’s roleSystematic reviewTask delegation

Identifiers

PMID27899090
PMCPMC5129662

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.