Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33257459›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021

Impact of primary care funding on patient satisfaction: a retrospective longitudinal study of English general practice, 2013-2016.

Veline L'Esperance, Hugh Gravelle, Peter Schofield, Mark Ashworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. GDP, CPI, RPI, and GPs: why economic indicators matter for GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Veline L'EsperanceSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London.
Hugh GravelleCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York.
Peter SchofieldSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London.
Mark AshworthSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding high-quality clinical care and good patient experience are priorities for most healthcare systems.

aimTo understand the relationship between general practice funding and patient-reported experience. DESIGN AND

settingRetrospective longitudinal study of English general practice-level data for the financial years 2013-2014 to 2016-2017.

methodData for all general practices in England from the General and Personal Medical Services database were linked to patient experience data from the GP Patient Survey (GPPS). Panel data multivariate regression was used to estimate the impact of general practice funding (current or lagged 1 year) per patient on GPPS-reported patient experience of access, continuity of care, professionalism, and overall satisfaction. Confounding was controlled for by practice, demographic, and GPPS responder characteristics, and for year effects.

resultsInflation-adjusted mean total annual funding per patient was £133.66 (standard deviation [SD] = £39.46). In all models, higher funding was associated with better patient experience. In the model with lagged funding and practice fixed effects (model 6), a 1 SD increase in funding was associated with increases in scores in the domains of access (1.18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89 to 1.47), continuity (0.86%; 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.52), professionalism of GP (0.47%; 95% CI = 0.22 to 0.71), professionalism of nurse (0.51%; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.77), professionalism of receptionist (0.51%; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.78), and in overall satisfaction (0.88%; 95% CI = 0.52 to 1.24).

conclusionBetter-funded general practices were more likely to have higher reported patient experience ratings across a wide range of domains.

Indexed as

General PracticePatient SatisfactionCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandHumansLongitudinal StudiesPrimary Health CareRetrospective Studiesgeneral practicepatient satisfactionprimary care fundingquality of care

Identifiers

PMID33257459
PMCPMC7716872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.