ArticleBJGP open2021
Characterising generalism in clinical practice: a systematic mixed studies review protocol.
Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Generalism as a cross-disciplinary practice in medicine: Mixed-studies systematic review.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Pooled it
- GP workforce sustainability to maximise effective and equitable patient care: a realist review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Review
- Patients' perspectives of epilepsy care by specialists and generalists: qualitative evidence synthesis.BJGP open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneralist physician care is associated with improved patient outcomes. Despite initiatives to promote generalism in educational settings, recruitment to generalist disciplines remains less than required to serve societal needs. Increasingly this impacts not just general practice but also generalist specialties such as internal medicine, surgery, and paediatrics. One potential factor for this deficit is a lack of explicit attention to generalism as a praxis, including clarifying key aspects of generalist expertise.
aimTo examine empirical clinical literature on generalism, and characterise how generalism is described and delivered by physicians in primary and secondary care. DESIGN &
settingA systematic mixed studies review (SMSR) including quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods studies, and systematic reviews of physician generalist practice.
methodMEDLINE, Psycinfo, SocINDEX, Embase, Ovid HealthSTAR, Scopus, and Web of Science will be searched for English language studies from 1999 to present, using a structured search. Given study heterogeneity, quality appraisal will not be performed. Two reviewers will perform study selection for each study. Data extraction will focus on how generalism is defined and characterised, including the clinical care provided by generalists and patient experiences of generalist care. Quantitative and qualitative data will be summarised in tabular and narrative form. Convergent synthesis design will then be used to synthesise quantitative and qualitative data.
conclusionFindings will characterise generalism and generalist practice from a grassroots clinical perspective. By identifying similarities and differences across generalist disciplines, this work will inform more focused educational initiatives on generalism at undergraduate and postgraduate level, including collaborations between generalist disciplines.
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.