Observational studyBMJ open2022
Residency training in family medicine and its impact on coordination and continuity of care: an analysis of referrals to secondary care in Rio de Janeiro.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of family medicine on health systems in the Americas: scoping review.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of residency training in family medicine on hospital admissions due to Ambulatory-care Sensitive Conditions in Rio de Janeiro.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the effect that residency training in family medicine (RTFM) has on continuity and coordination of care.
designObservational cohort study using electronic health records.
settingRio de Janeiro, Brazil, public primary care system.
participants504 940 patients, 633 generalists (physicians without RTFM) and 204 family physicians (FP-doctors with 2 years of RTFM) from one health district between January 2015 and December 2018.
interventionTwo years of RTFM.
main outcome measuresRelative risks of patients being referred to secondary care for outpatient consultations and diagnostics tests; and having a follow-up medical consultation in primary care within 3 and 6 months after being referred.
resultsWe examined 2 414 508 medical consultations and 284 754 referrals to secondary care. FPs were less likely to request ambulatory care services (including surgical specialties), but were more likely to request ophthalmology, physiotherapy, rehabilitationand surgical evaluations for their patients. Patients referred to secondary care by FPs were more likely to have a follow-up visit in primary care for almost every service requested. If all medical consultations were performed by FPs, a 37.6% (95% CI 32.4% to 42.4%) increased demand for rehabilitation services would be noticed. Oppositely, 1532 (95% CI 1458 to 1602) fewer requests for dermatology would happen every year.
conclusionsRTFM improves coordination and continuity of care by making FPs more competent to retain those health conditions that can be properly managed in primary care and making FPs more competent to detect health conditions that require specific biomedical technologies and skills, increasing the demand for those services. Besides, it increases the chances of patients having follow-up visits in primary care. Policy-makers in low-income and middle-income countries must consider investing in RTFM to make primary care systems more comprehensive, with better coordination and continuity of care.
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.