Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28360073›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2017

Patient participation in general practice based undergraduate teaching: a focus group study of patient perspectives.

Sophie E Park, Caroline Allfrey, Melvyn M Jones, Jasprit Chana, Ciara Abbott, Sofia Faircloth, Nicola Higgins, Laila Abdullah

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Sophie E ParkResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1521-2052
Caroline AllfreyResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.
Melvyn M JonesResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8766-7443
Jasprit ChanaResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.
Ciara AbbottResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.
Sofia FairclothResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.
Nicola HigginsResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.
Laila AbdullahResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London Medical School, University College London, Hampstead, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients make a crucial contribution to undergraduate medical education. Although a national resource is available for patients participating in research, none is as yet available for education.

aimThis study aimed to explore what information patients would like about participation in general practice based undergraduate medical education, and how they would like to obtain this information. DESIGN AND

settingTwo focus groups were conducted in London-based practices involved in both undergraduate and postgraduate teaching.

methodPatients both with and without teaching experience were recruited using leaflets, posters, and patient participation groups. An open-ended topic guide explored three areas: perceived barriers that participants anticipated or had experienced; patient roles in medical education; and what help would support participation. Focus groups were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

resultsPatients suggested ways of professionalising the teaching process. These were: making information available to patients about confidentiality, iterative consent, and normalising teaching in the practice. Patients highlighted the importance of relationships, making information available about their GPs' involvement in teaching, and initiating student-patient interactions. Participants emphasised educational principles to maximise exchange of information, including active participation of students, patient identification of student learner needs, and exchange of feedback.

conclusionThis study will inform development of patient information resources to support their participation in teaching and access to information both before and during general practice based teaching encounters.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, GraduateEducation, Medical, UndergraduateFocus GroupsPatient ParticipationGeneral PracticeHumansLondonPatientsProfessional PracticeQualitative ResearchTeachinggeneral practicemedical educationmedical studentspatient participationundergraduate teaching

Identifiers

PMID28360073
PMCPMC5378481

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.