ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018
Presenting the primary care team to the public: a qualitative exploration of general practice websites.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Analysis of Urban Indian Organizations' Promotion of Cancer Services.Cancer research communications · 2025Article
- Promoting parkrun to patients using the general practice website: a qualitative exploration of 'parkrun practice' websites.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Adherence to guidelines on documentation required for registration to London GP practice websites: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing demand and expanded primary care provision, coupled with a reduced GP workforce, present challenges for primary care. New workforce models aim to reduce GP workload by directing patients to a variety of alternative clinicians. Concurrently, the principle of patient choice in relation to healthcare providers has gained prominence. It is, therefore, necessary to provide patients with sufficient information to negotiate access to appropriate primary healthcare professionals.
aimTo explore how practice websites present three exemplar healthcare professional groups (GPs, advanced nurse practitioners [ANPs], and practice nurses [PNs]) to patients and the implications for informing appropriate consultation choices. DESIGN AND
settingQualitative thematic analysis of a sample of general practice websites.
methodIn total, 79 accessible websites from a metropolitan district in the north of England were thematically analysed in relation to professional representation and signposting of the three identified professional groups.
resultsInformation about each group was incomplete, inconsistent, and sometimes inaccurate across the majority of general practice websites. There was a lack of coherence and strategy in representation and direction of website users towards appropriate primary healthcare practitioners.
conclusionLimited and unclear representation of professional groups on general practice websites may have implications for the direction of patients to the wider clinical healthcare team. Patients may not have appropriate information to make choices about consulting with different healthcare practitioners. This constitutes a missed opportunity to signpost patients to appropriate clinicians and enhance understanding of different professional roles. The potential for websites to disseminate information to the public is not being maximised.
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.