Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33388032›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

Characteristics of patients who access zero, one or multiple general practices and reasons for their choices: a study in regional Australia.

Kristen M Glenister, John Guymer, Lisa Bourke, David Simmons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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.

Kristen M GlenisterResearch Fellow, University of Melbourne Department of Rural Health. 'The Chalet', Docker Street, Wangaratta, 3677, Australia. Kristen.glenister@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-0510-5314
John GuymerWyndham House Clinic, Shepparton, 3630, Australia.
Lisa BourkeUniversity Department of Rural Health, University of Melbourne Department of Rural Health, 49 Graham Street, Shepparton, 3630, Australia.
David SimmonsUniversity Department of Rural Health, University of Melbourne Department of Rural Health, 49 Graham Street, Shepparton, 3630, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1113850
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost people in Australia visit a General Practitioner each year and are free to choose their General Practitioner and/or practice on each occasion. A proportion of people visit multiple general practices, which can reduce continuity of care, a core value of general practice. Utilisation of multiple general practices is associated with metropolitan residence and younger age. However, it is unclear which factors are associated with utilisation of multiple general practices in rural areas, where there are often General Practitioner workforce shortages and higher proportions of patients who may benefit from continuity of care, including older people and people living with chronic disease. The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics of people in a rural Australian area who accessed multiple general practices in the previous year with people who had accessed one practice, or none.

methodsA cross-sectional survey assessed self-reported utilisation and perspective of general practice services, uses of multiple practices, associated reasons, lifestyle advice and screening services received in four regional Victorian towns. Households were randomly selected and residents aged 16+ were eligible to participate in the adult survey.

resultsMost people had attended a single general practice (78.9%), while 14.4% attended more than one practice and 6.7% attended no practices in the previous 12 months. Compared with utilisation of a single general practice, multiple general practice attendance in the previous year was associated with younger age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR 95% confidence interval) 0.98 per year (0.97-0.99), residence in the regional centre aOR 2.90(2.22-3.78), emergency department (ED) attendance in the last 12 months aOR 1.65(1.22-2.21) and no out of pocket costs aOR 1.36(1.04-1.79)). Reasons for multiple general practice attendance included availability of appointments, cost and access to specific services. Compared with multiple general practice attendance, those attending single practices reported more screening tests but similar frequency of lifestyle advice. People who accessed multiple practices were less likely to report very high satisfaction (51.7% vs 62.9% p < 0.001) or excellent degree of confidence in their doctor (42.0% vs 49.8% p = 0.006) than single practice attendees.

conclusionsThose attending single practices report higher satisfaction and confidence in their GP and were less likely to attend ED. Further studies are required to test whether increasing availability of appointments and reducing out-of-pocket expenses would increase single practice attendance and/or decrease healthcare costs overall.

Indexed as

General PracticeAdultAgedAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesEmergency Service, HospitalFamily PracticeHumansInfantContinuity of careGeneral practiceLifestylePreventative healthRuralScreening

Identifiers

PMID33388032
PMCPMC7777414

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.