ArticleBJGP open2024
Patients' views on primary care multidisciplinary teams in Scotland: a mixed-methods evaluation.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implications of skill-mix change in general practice: secondary analysis of data from the GP Patient Survey.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Facilitators and barriers in the implementation of patient-centred care interventions among general practitioners: a systematic review protocol.Health research policy and systems · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpanding primary care multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) was a key component of the 2018 Scottish GP contract, with more than 4700 MDT staff appointed since then.
aimTo explore patients' views on primary care MDT expansion in Scotland. DESIGN &
settingA mixed-methods evaluation, which included a postal survey and semi-structured telephone interviews with patients in Scotland.
methodA survey was undertaken of patients who had recently consulted a GP in deprived urban, affluent urban, and remote and rural areas, assessing awareness of five MDT roles and attitudes towards receptionist signposting. In addition, 30 individual interviews were conducted, exploring patients' MDT-care experiences.
resultsOf 1053 survey responders, most were unaware of the option of MDT rather than GP consultations for three out of five roles (69% unaware of link worker appointments; 69% mental health nurse; and 58% pharmacist). Reception signposting was less popular in deprived urban areas (34% unhappy versus 29% in remote and rural versus 21% affluent urban;
conclusionMDT care has expanded in Scotland with limited patient awareness. Although patients understand its potential value, many are unhappy with reception signposting to first-contact MDT care, especially those in deprived urban areas living with multimorbidity. This represents a barrier to the aims of the new GP contract.
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.