ArticleJournal of health monitoring2020
Gynaecology and general practitioner services utilisation by women in the age group 50 years and older.
Article in Journal of health monitoring, 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.
- Women's sexually transmitted infections in primary care: General practitioners' challenges and strategies - A qualitative study in Germany.The European journal of general practice · 2023Article
- Article
- Care reality of menopausal women in Germany: healthcare research using quantitative (SHI claims data) and qualitative (survey) data collection.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2022Article
- Collaboration amongst general practitioners and gynaecologists working in primary health care in Germany: a cross-sectional study.Primary health care research & development · 2021Article
- Reasons for women aged 50 years and older to seek gynaecological advice and treatment.Journal of health monitoring · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are relatively few representative data on the utilisation of physician services in Germany and its influencing. Based on data from the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1, 2008-2011), we analyse the utilisation of gynaecology and general practitioner (GP) services, with a focus on women aged 50 years and older. We compare these findings with data from the German National Health Interview and Examination Survey 1998 (GNHIES98) and, based on this and further data, discuss possible developments. Figures for seeking GP services (over 80%) are constantly high across the entire lifespan, whereas figures for gynaecology services drop with age. Around 60% of women aged 50 years and older go to a gynaecological practice at least once a year. Socioeconomic status and place of residence are important determinants for the utilisation of services. Around half of all women aged 50 years and older sought both gynaecology and GP services at least once over a one-year period. Under 10% had only been to a gynaecologist, and around one third sought GP services only. Compared to GNHIES98, figures for GP and gynaecology services were considerably higher in DEGS1, health insurance data, however, shows no increase in the use of gynaecology services between 2008 and 2018. The results highlight the need to increase awareness among GPs of the needs of middle-aged and older women for gynaecological consultation and treatment.
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.