ArticleBMJ open2023
Quantifying unmet need in General Practice: a retrospective cohort study of administrative data.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pilot of a novel patient-led intervention for postdischarge from hospital management of older patients' care in general practice.Family medicine and community health · 2026Article
- Article
- Quantifying unmet secondary healthcare need in New Zealand: a multi-year population study using administrative data.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Multimorbidity and person-centred care in a socioeconomically deprived community: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether patients attending general practices (GPs) in socioeconomically (SE) deprived areas receive the same amount of care, compared with similar patients (based on age, sex and level of morbidity) attending GPs in less deprived areas. If not, to quantify the additional resource that would be required by GPs in deprived areas to achieve parity.
designRetrospective cohort study.
setting150 GPs in Scotland, UK, divided into two groups: 80 practices in Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) deciles 1-5 (more SE deprived); 70 practices in SIMD deciles 6-10 (less SE deprived). PATIENTS: 437 590 patients registered with a more SE deprived GP, and 333 994 patients registered with a less SE deprived GP, for the whole study period (2013-2016), who made at least one appointment. OUTCOMES: The number of contacts and total contact time between patients and clinical staff.
resultsPatients in more SE deprived areas had slightly more discrete contacts over 3 years (11.8 vs 11.4), but each patient had marginally less contact time (146.1 vs 149.5 min). Stratified by sex and age, differences were also small. Stratified by the number of long-term conditions (LTCs), practices in more SE deprived areas delivered significantly less contact time than practices in less SE deprived areas. Over 3 years, 8 fewer minutes for patients with no LTCs, and 24, 27, 38 and 28 fewer minutes for patients with 1, 2, 3-4 or 5+LTCs, respectively.
conclusionIf GPs in more SE deprived areas were to give an equal amount of direct contact time to patients with the same level of need served by GPs in less SE deprived areas, this would require a 14% increase in patient contact time. This represents a significant unmet need, supporting the case for redistribution of resources to tackle the inverse care law.
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.