Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28450345›Full record

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

The Friends and Family Test in general practice in England: a qualitative study of the views of staff and patients.

Tommaso Manacorda, Bob Erens, Nick Black, Nicholas Mays

Abstract read
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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Tommaso ManacordaPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.
Bob ErensPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.
Nick BlackPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.
Nicholas MaysPolicy Innovation Research Unit, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Friends and Family Test (FFT) was introduced into general practices in England in 2015 to provide staff with information on patients' views of their experience of care.

aimTo examine the views of practice staff and patients of the FFT, how the results are used, and to recommend improvements. DESIGN AND

settingA qualitative study of a national representative sample of 42 general practices.

methodSemi-structured interviews with 43 clinicians, 48 practice managers, and 27 patient representatives. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed thematically.

resultsAlthough the FFT imposed little extra work on practices, it was judged to provide little additional insight over existing methods and to have had minimal impact on improving quality. Staff lacked confidence in the accuracy of the results given the lack of a representative sample and the risk of bias. The FFT question was judged to be inappropriate as in many areas there was no alternative practice for patients to choose, patients' individual needs would not be the same as those of their friends and relatives, and an overall assessment failed to identify any specific aspects of good- or poor-quality care. Despite being intended to support local quality improvement, there was widespread unease about the FFT, with many responders perceiving it as a tool for national bodies to monitor general practices.

conclusionIf the use of a single-item questionnaire is to continue, changes should be made to the wording. It should be focused on stimulating local quality improvement, and practice staff should be supported to use the results effectively.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthEnglandFamily HealthFeedbackGatekeepingGeneral PracticeHumansPatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementRural HealthSurveys and QuestionnairesUrban HealthFriends and Family Testgeneral practicepatient experiencequalitative researchquality improvementsurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28450345
PMCPMC5409431

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.