ArticleBMC family practice2019
Prevalence and predictors of having no general practitioner - analysis of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1).
Article in BMC family practice, 2019. 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.
- How do patients, medical assistants and physicians accept and experience tablet-based cognitive testing by medical assistants in general practice? - A qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Regional and patient-related factors influencing the willingness to use general practitioners as coordinators of the treatment in northern Germany - results of a cross-sectional observational study.BMC family practice · 2020Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough patients in Germany are generally free to choose their primary healthcare provider, this role should mainly be assumed by general practitioners (GPs). While some predictors of the frequency of use of GP services have been reported in international studies, there is still a lack in knowledge what could deter people from contacting a GP in Germany. To improve healthcare, it is important to identify characteristics of people without a GP.
methodsThis cross-sectional analysis was based on the first wave of the "German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults" (DEGS1) conducted by the Robert Koch Institute in 2008-2011. Descriptive analyses and multiple logistic regression by gender were performed to analyze the association between having no GP and age, gender, residential area, socioeconomic status (SES), marital status, working hours per week, general state of health, chronic diseases and health insurance.
resultsOverall, 9.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.4-10.7) of the 7755 participants stated to have no GP, more often men (11.4%) than women (7.6%). Life in urban areas (big cities vs. rural: adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.9, 95% CI: 2.1-3.9), younger age (18-29 years vs. 65-79 years: aOR: 4.4, 95% CI: 2.5-7.7) and the presence of chronic diseases (yes vs. no: aOR: 0.4, 95% CI: 0.3-0.6) showed significant associations of not having a GP. For men, the type of health insurance (private vs. statutory: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.5-3.0; other vs. statutory: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4-3.1) and for women, SES (low vs. medium: aOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7; high vs. medium: aOR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.4-3.0) increased the risk of having no GP.
conclusionsOur analysis offers new insights into the use of GPs in Germany and revealed differences between men and women. Public health strategies regarding access to a GP have to focus on men and on women with a low SES. Further analyses are needed to determine whether men with private health insurance prefer to consult a specialist rather than a GP. For young adults, improving the transition process from a pediatrician to a GP could fill a gap in health care.
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.