Observational studyFamily practice2024
Comparing the number and length of primary care consultations in people with and without intellectual disabilities and health needs: observational cohort study using electronic health records.
Observational study in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adherence to Remote Prescribing Principles by Medical and Non-Medical Prescribers; a Scoping Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Palliative and end-of-life care in people with and without intellectual disabilities in primary care: identification, survival time, and healthcare utilization.Family practice · 2026Article
- Assessing hearing health inequalities using routine health information systems.Journal of public health policy · 2025Article
- The risk of type 2-diabetes among persons with intellectual disability: a Danish population-based matched cohort study.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Equitable hospital length of stay prediction for patients with learning disabilities and multiple long-term conditions using machine learning.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn the United Kingdom, 15-min appointments with the general practitioner (GP) are recommended for people with complex health conditions, including intellectual disabilities and health needs, but we do not know whether this happens.
aimsWe compared number and length of primary care consultations (GP, nurse, other allied health, other) for people with and without intellectual disabilities and health needs.
methodsLinked primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) in England were used to investigate face-to-face and telephone primary care consultations in 2017-2019. Health needs investigated were: epilepsy; incontinence; severe visual/hearing impairments; severe mobility difficulties; cerebral palsy; and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding. Age and gender-standardized consultation rates per year (Poisson), duration of consultations, and the proportion of "long consultations" (≥15 min) were reported.
resultsPeople with intellectual disabilities (n = 7,794) had 1.9 times as many GP consultations per year as those without (n = 176,807; consultation rate ratio = 1.87 [95% confidence interval 1.86-1.89]). Consultation rates with nurses and allied healthcare professionals were also twice as high. Mean GP consultation time was 9-10 min regardless of intellectual disability/health need status. Long GP consultations were less common in people with intellectual disabilities (18.2% [17.8-18.7] vs. 20.9% [20.8-21.0]). Long consultations with practice nurses were more common in people with health needs, particularly severe visual loss.
conclusionsPeople with intellectual disabilities and/or health needs tend to have more, rather than longer, GP consultations compared with the rest of the population. We recommend further investigation into the role of practice nurses to support people with intellectual disabilities and health needs.
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.