ArticleBMC primary care2022
The Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study: updated protocol.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early-career general practitioners' antibiotic prescribing for acute infections: a systematic review.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2024Pooled it
- Use of point-of-care resources for management of paediatric asthma: frequency, types and temporal trends in early-career general practitioners.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Educational and research utility of the registrar clinical encounters in training (ReCEnT) project: an exploration of mechanisms using the context, input, process and product (CIPP) framework.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Prevalence of Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infection in Telehealth Versus Face-to-Face Consultations: Cross-Sectional Analysis of General Practice Registrars' Clinical Practice.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Changing the antibiotic prescribing of Australian general practice registrars' for acute respiratory tract infections: a non-randomized controlled trial.Family practice · 2025Article
- Australian general practice registrars' billing patterns: a cross-sectional analysis from the Registrars Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Temporal trends in the prevalence of GP registrars' long-term paediatric asthma control medications prescription.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Temporal patterns of antibiotic prescribing for sore throat, otitis media, and sinusitis: a longitudinal study of general practitioner registrars.Family practice · 2024Article
- Saxon Epidemiological Study in General Practice-6 (SESAM-6): protocol of a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Video versus telephone for telehealth delivery: a cross-sectional study of Australian general practice trainees.Family practice · 2024Article
- Absolute cardiovascular risk assessment by Australian early-career general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.Family medicine and community 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring vocational general practice training, the content of each trainee's (in Australia, registrars') in-consultation clinical experience is expected to entail a breadth of conditions that exemplify general practice, enabling registrars to gain competency in managing common clinical conditions and common clinical scenarios. Prior to the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project there was little research into the content of registrars' consultations despite its importance to quality of training. ReCEnT aims to document the consultation-based clinical and educational experiences of individual Australian registrars.
methodsReCEnT is an inception cohort study. It is comprised of closely interrelated research and educational components. Registrars are recruited by participating general practice regional training organisations. They provide demographic information about themselves, their skills, and their previous training. In each of three 6-month long general practice training terms they provide data about the practice where they work and collect data from 60 consecutive patient encounters using an online portal. Analysis of data uses standard techniques including linear and logistic regression modelling. The ReCEnT project has approval from the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee, Reference H-2009-0323. DISCUSSION: Strengths of the study are the granular detail of clinical practice relating to patient demographics, presenting problems/diagnoses, medication decisions, investigations requested, referrals made, procedures undertaken, follow-up arranged, learning goals generated, and in-consultation help sought; the linking of the above variables to the presenting problems/diagnoses to which they pertain; and a very high response rate. The study is limited by not having information regarding severity of illness, medical history of the patient, full medication regimens, or patient compliance to clinical decisions made at the consultation. Data is analysed using standard techniques to answer research questions that can be categorised as: mapping analyses of clinical exposure; exploratory analyses of associations of clinical exposure; mapping and exploratory analyses of educational actions; mapping and exploratory analyses of other outcomes; longitudinal 'within-registrar' analyses; longitudinal 'within-program' analyses; testing efficacy of educational interventions; and analyses of ReCEnT data together with data from other sources. The study enables identification of training needs and translation of subsequent evidence-based educational innovations into specialist training of general practitioners.
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.