ArticleFamily practice2020
Is there an association between socioeconomic status of General Practice population and postgraduate training practice accreditation? A cross-sectional analysis of Scottish General Practices.
Article in Family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety Culture and the Positive Association of Being a Primary Care Training Practice during COVID-19: The Results of the Multi-Country European PRICOV-19 Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPractice population socioeconomic status is associated with practice postgraduate training accreditation. General Practitioner recruitment to socioeconomically deprived areas is challenging, exposure during training may encourage recruitment.
objectivesTo determine the association of practice population socioeconomic deprivation score and training status, and if this has changed over time.
methodsCross-sectional study looking at socioeconomic deprivation and training status for all General Practices in Scotland (n = 982). Data from Information Services Division, from 2015, were combined with the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation to calculate weighted socioeconomic deprivation scores for every practice in Scotland. Scottish training body database identified training practices (n = 330). Mean deprivation score for training and non-training practices was calculated. Logistic regression was used to quantify the odds ratio of training status based on deprivation score, adjusted for practice list size, and compared with a similar 2009 analysis.
resultsSocioeconomic deprivation score is associated with training status, but is not significant when adjusted for practice list size [OR (adjusted) 0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.04]. In contrast, in 2009, adjusted deprivation score remained significant. Mean deprivation score in training and non-training practices remained similar at both time points [2015: 2.98 (SD 0.88) versus 3.17 (SD 0.81); 2009: 2.95 versus 3.19), with a more deprived mean score in non-training practices.
conclusionsGeneral practices in affluent areas remain more likely to train, although this association appears to be related to larger practice list sizes rather than socioeconomic factors. To ensure a variety of training environments training bodies should target, and support, smaller practices working in more socioeconomically deprived areas.
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.