ArticleBMJ open2024
General practitioner workforce sustainability to maximise effective and equitable patient care: a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sentinel Networks for the Surveillance of Overweight and Obesity: A Scoping Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Article
- Understanding and improving compound pressures in general practice: a realist review protocol.BJGP open · 2026Article
- GP workforce sustainability to maximise effective and equitable patient care: a realist review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Review
- Understanding the retention and support needs of UK first contact practitioner physiotherapists in primary care; a realist review.BMC primary care · 2026Review
- Burnout and patient safety: navigating between exaggerated evidence and warranted assertability.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- [Current Status and Influencing Factors of Healthcare Satisfaction Among Chronic Disease Patients Under the Background of Compact County-Level Medical Alliances: A Mixed Methods Study].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2025Article
- Specialist medication monitoring and prescribing in primary care: case study of shared care agreements in Northern England, UK.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Balancing specialist roles with generalist responsibilities in primary care: have we gone too far?Frontiers in health services · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere are not enough general practitioners (GPs) in the UK National Health Service. This problem is worse in areas of the country where poverty and underinvestment in health and social care mean patients experience poorer health compared with wealthier regions. Encouraging more doctors to choose and continue in a GP career is a government priority. This review will examine which aspects of the healthcare system affect GP workforce sustainability, how, why and for whom. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review is a theory-driven interpretive approach to evidence synthesis, that brings together qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods research and grey literature. We will use a realist approach to synthesise data from the available published literature to refine an evidence-based programme theory that will identify the important contextual factors and underlying mechanisms that underpin observed outcomes relating to GP workforce sustainability. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will work closely with key stakeholders and embed patient and public involvement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and enhance the impact and relevance of our research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require formal ethical approval as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be disseminated through multiple channels, including publication in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences, and other digital scholarly communication tools such as video summaries, X and blog posts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023395583.
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.