ArticleBMJ open2018
Factors affecting decisions to extend access to primary care: results of a qualitative evaluation of general practitioners' views.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- GP workforce sustainability to maximise effective and equitable patient care: a realist review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo report general practitioners' (GPs') views and experiences of an Enhanced Primary Care programme (EPCP) funded as part of the Prime Minister's Challenge Fund (second wave) for England which aimed to extend patient access to primary care.
settingPrimary care in Sheffield, England.
participantsSemi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of GPs working in 24 practices across the city.
resultsFour core themes were derived: GPs' receptivity to the aims of the EPCP, their capacity to support integrated care teams, their capacity to manage urgent care and the value of some new community-based schemes to enhance locality-based primary care. GPs were aware of the policy initiatives associated with out-of-hours access that aimed to reduce emergency department and hospital admissions. Due to limited capacity to respond to the programme, they selected elements that directly related to local patient demand and did not increase their own workload.
conclusionsThe variation in practice engagement and capacity to manage changes in primary care services warrants a subtle and specialist approach to programme planning. The study makes the case for enhanced planning and organisational development with GPs as stakeholders within individual practices and groups. This would ensure that policy implementation is effective and sustained at local level. A failure to localise implementation may be associated with increased workloading in primary care without the sustained benefits to patients and the public. To enable GPs to become involved in systems transformation, further research is needed to identify the best methods to engage GPs in programme planning and evaluation.
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.