ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2017
No common understanding of profession terms utilized in health services research : An add-on qualitative study in the context of the QUALICOPC project in Austria.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The evolution of health services research in Austria: a bibliometric exploration of trends, themes, and collaborations.Frontiers in health services · 2025Pooled it
- Patient's Perception of Primary Health Care Provision With Respect to Access, Continuity and Coordination-InCept: An International Qualitative Perspective.The International journal of health planning and management · 2025Article
- Association between physical activity and the utilization of general practitioners in different age groups.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth services research, especially in primary care, is challenging because the systems differ widely between countries. This study aimed to explore the different understanding of the terminology used, particularly, regarding the professions nursing and medical secretaries.
methodsThe study was an add-on study to the Quality and Costs in Primary Care (QUALICOPC) project in Austria and designed as qualitative research. The qualitative phase was conducted by using semi-structured telephone interviews with general practitioners (GP). and17 GPs participated in the study.
resultsNo uniform meaning of the terms commonly utilized for the abovementioned health professions could be found among Austrian GPs. For example, under the profession term practice assistants, nurses as well as literal medical secretaries with and without special education and related work competencies and responsibilities were subsumed.
conclusionsOur study results show that no uniform meaning of the terms commonly utilized for above described health profession could be found even within one country by GPs. These findings are highly relevant, especially, when trying to compare results with similar data from other countries or negotiating about workforce issues. Our findings implicate several action points for health services research and health policy. We propose the development of a harmonized terminology in Europe for the health profession based on standards of undergraduate and postgraduate education, competencies and continuous education commitments. This would not only benefit comparative health system research but also patient safety across Europe.
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.