ArticleBJGP open2024
What makes a good general practice consultation? An exploratory pilot study with people from a low socioeconomic background.
Article in BJGP open, 2024. 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.
- Gateway to belonging? A mixed-methods study exploring the experiences of widening participation students in a UK medical school.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Observational
- The Digital Library of Health Care Consultations and Simulated Health Care Student Teaching: Protocol for a Repository of Recordings to Support Communication Research.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Discussing poverty within primary care consultations: implications for mental health support.BJGP open · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile patients from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds are at increased risk of developing chronic health conditions, typically managed within general practice, they report fewer positive consultation experiences with GPs than patients from higher SES groups. To our knowledge, existing research does not provide an in-depth understanding of the GP conducts that contribute to positive consultations.
aimTo identify the factors that patients from low SES backgrounds perceive as essential for creating good consultation experiences. DESIGN &
settingThis exploratory pilot study was performed in GP clinics in Melbourne, Australia.
methodWe used an appreciative inquiry approach, focused on positive consultation experiences, previously shown to be helpful for researching sensitive topics. Nine patients from low SES backgrounds, who reported positive consultation experiences, undertook a semi-structured qualitative interview while watching the video recording of their GP consultation. Four different GPs were captured in the recordings. Inductive thematic coding was performed by two researchers.
resultsThe following four categories were developed: 1) the doctor's demeanour and how the patient was made to feel during the consultation drove their engagement; 2) an established and collaborative therapeutic relationship was of high importance to patients; 3) a doctor's therapeutic skillset was integral to patient confidence and comfort; and 4) patients appreciated verbal and non-verbal communication techniques. In each interview, the discussion about the video-recorded consultation often triggered reflections about previous consultations with the respective GP.
conclusionFor patients from low SES groups, positive consultation experiences were underpinned by perceived continuity of care with a specific GP who consistently showed good communication skills and key interpersonal characteristics. This research is a small step towards increasing our understanding of the experience of individuals from low SES backgrounds in primary care and the existing health inequities within this area.
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.