ArticlePrimary health care research & development2020
General practitioners' knowledge of leg ulcer treatment in primary healthcare: an interview study.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Safety in Ulcer Management: Healthcare Professionals' Experiences of Systemic Challenges Across Primary and Secondary Healthcare Settings.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- What Primary Care Physicians Expect From Continuing Medical Education in Wound Management-A Survey Study.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Exploring Self-Perceived Competence and Challenges in Wound Management Among Primary Healthcare Physicians-A Survey Study.International wound journal · 2025Article
- The Impact of Diagnostic Delay on Wound Healing-A Cohort Study in a Primary Care Setting.International wound journal · 2025Article
- Early ABI Testing May Decrease Risk of Amputation for Patients With Lower Extremity Ulcers.Annals of vascular surgery · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge and the development of their knowledge regarding leg ulcer treatment when treating patients with leg ulceration at primary healthcare centers.
backgroundEarlier research regarding GPs' knowledge of leg ulcer treatment in a primary healthcare context has focused primarily on the assessment of wounds and knowledge of wound care products. Less is known about GPs' understandings of their own knowledge and knowledge development regarding leg ulceration in the everyday clinical context. This study, therefore, sets out to highlight these aspects from the GPs' perspective.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 individual GPs working at both private and county council run healthcare centers. The data were analyzed inductively using a thematic analysis.
resultsFour themes were identified. 'Education and training' describe the GPs' views regarding their knowledge and knowledge development in relation to leg ulcer treatment. 'Experience' refers to GPs' thoughts about the importance of clinical experience when treating leg ulcers. 'Prioritization' describes the issues GPs raised around managing the different knowledge areas in their clinical work. 'Time constraints' explore the relationship between GPs' sense of time pressure and their opportunities to participate in professional development courses.
conclusionsThe study shows that the GPs working in primary healthcare are aware of the need for ongoing competence development concerning leg ulceration. They describe their current knowledge of leg ulcer treatment as insufficient and point to the lack of relevant courses that are adapted for their level of knowledge and the limited opportunities for clinical training.
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.