ArticleBMJ open2020
Media content analysis of general practitioners' reactions to care.data expressed in the media: what lessons can be learned for future NHS data-sharing initiatives?
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Sharing general practice data: a qualitative study with Australian general practitioners.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Unlocking insights: general practice staff perspectives on sharing general practice data for research - a scoping review.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Benefits and risks of health data reuse for healthcare providers: stakeholder perspectives from a qualitative interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- How to establish and sustain a disease registry: insights from a qualitative study of six disease registries in the UK.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
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
Abstract
objectivesCare.data was a 2013 UK government initiative to extract patient data from general practices in England to form a centralised whole-population database for service planning and health research. After a public outcry, the scheme was postponed and cancelled. Public views of care.data have previously been analysed; this study aimed to understand contemporary general practitioners' (GPs) views of the scheme, which may have been influential in its downfall.
designSystematic search of media articles, followed by media content analysis.
settingUK-based mainstream and GP-facing media in 2013 and 2014.
participantsArticles were eligible if they focused on care.data, and GPs were quoted, authored the article, or if articles were written for a majority GP audience.
interventionsN/A. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes which explained GPs' reactions to care.data and which could explain support for or opposition to the scheme.
results162 media articles met inclusion criteria and were drawn from newspapers, news websites and GP-facing websites. GPs recognised care.data's potential value for research and improving care, but had grave concerns about the scheme's implementation. These centred the lack of safeguards and purpose around the scheme which meant patients were not able to make informed decisions about opt-out. GPs perceived they were poorly resourced to meet competing demands to both share patients' data and protect confidentiality. They distrusted the government's likely uses of the data and perceived a risk of patient reidentification if the data were sold onto commercial entities.
conclusionsFindings show specific concerns which GPs had about care.data which led to the withdrawal of support. Future NHS patient data-sharing schemes should engage with GPs and other clinicians as key stakeholders from the earliest moments of planning, so that their views and needs are incorporated into the design of such schemes.
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.