ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
A cross-sectional survey on medical education needs of general practitioners and family medicine: Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, India.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. 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.
- Evaluation of Multifaceted Assessment of the Fifth-Year Medical Students in Family Medicine Clerkship, Saudi Arabia Experience.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
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
backgroundIn India, most physicians pursue a specialist's degree resulting in a dearth of general practitioners (GPs). To provide primary care across populations and support universal healthcare coverage (UHC), there is a need to develop a core educational foundation for generalists and family medicine in undergraduate and post-graduate training. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional survey was conducted as a part of a medical educational needs assessment (ENA) with a focus on family medicine. Respondents included practicing physicians, residents and medical students in Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Tamil Nadu. Descriptive and bi-variate data analysis (Pearson's Chi square, independent
resultsThree hundred and sixty-one surveys were completed. From which, 80.7% (284) of respondents felt that family medicine would be beneficial/very beneficial to the Indian health system. Respondents were split over whether family medicine programmes should be integrated within the existing bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery (MBBS) programmes (149/42.5%) or created as a separate post-graduate level specialty (131/37.3%). Overall, 84.2% (292) and 85.4% (294) agreed/strongly agreed that family medicine would benefit specialists and decrease the health disparities. Challenges include lack of information about family medicine and patients' use of specialists for primary healthcare needs.
conclusionsThere was a positive response to expanding education for generalists and development of family medicine as a specialty in India. Mechanisms to support policies and programmes need to be further explored to ensure successful implementation across the country. Interest in skills-based courses can be an opportunity to provide GP and family medicine training while broader system-level changes are considered.
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.