ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2023
Danish general practitioners as gatekeepers for gynaecological patients in regions with different density of resident specialists in gynaecology: in which situations and to whom do they refer? A cross-sectional study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2023. 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.
- Continuity in a fragmented healthcare system: - organizational and individual determinants.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Beyond headcount: four dimensions of Canada's primary care access crisis and a three-level agenda for action.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Differences in the referral process from general practice to resident specialists in gynaecology depending on density of specialists and patients' socioeconomic status.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are large differences in the density of Resident Specialists in Gynaecology (RSG) in the various regions of Denmark. It is unknown if this inequality affects the General Practitioner (GP) referral patterns of gynaecological patients.
objectiveTo investigate the GP referral patterns of gynaecological patients to the RSG or to the Hospital/Outpatient Clinic (HOC) in specific situations according to the regional density of RSGs. Moreover, to examine whether GPs prefer to refer to the HOC or to the RSG, or whether they were treated by the GP depending on the density of RSGs, specifically, in six benign gynaecological diagnoses.
designA cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
settingIn Denmark, GPs serve as gatekeepers to secondary care, being responsible for referrals to resident specialists and in- and outpatient hospital care. SUBJECTS: Five hundred Danish GPs were randomly selected and invited to take part in the questionnaire study. Main outcome measurements: Referral patterns: Own treatment, RSG, or HOC.
resultsGPs prefer to refer their gynaecologic patients to RSGs rather than to HOCs. In addition, the study shows the higher the density of RSGs, the more gynaecological patients are referred to the RSG. This also applies to the six diagnoses examined.
conclusionTo allow patients' equal access to specialist care, the density of RSGs must be equal all over the country.
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.