ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Ensuring primary care in Germany-findings from a quantitative survey of general practitioners].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. 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.
- Point-of-care ultrasound in German general practice: a qualitative study of opportunities and barriers.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Bridging gaps in care: medical student home visits and their influence on radiation oncology patients.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Exploring the link between physician burnout and intentions to retire early.BMC public health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven the risk of a shortage of general practitioners in private practice, the question arises as to which concepts can make an effective contribution. To date, there is a lack of studies that comprehensively shed light on how general practitioners, based on their professional experience, view different approaches to ensuring primary care in the long term.
objectivesThe aim of the study was to determine the positions, attitudes, and experiences of general practitioners with regard to ensuring primary care.
methodsUsing an online survey, a total of 4176 general practitioners were surveyed between February and June 2023. In addition to the descriptive analysis, a t-test on independent samples was used to determine significant differences between two groups.
resultsOf those surveyed, 42% reported a noticeable decline of general medical practices in their area. In addition, 53% saw a declining attractiveness of primary care for young doctors, which is attributed to three problem areas: 1) the position of primary care in the healthcare system, 2) requirements for training and further education, and 3) working conditions. In order to secure primary care, those surveyed were primarily in favor of the following approaches: establishing a primary care physician system (85%), increasing the promotion of interest and points of contact in training and further education (80%), strengthening multi-professional outpatient care centers (64%), restructuring curricula (56%) and admission criteria for medical studies (50%), and reforming general medical training (53%).
conclusionsAs the results show, general practitioners have their own suggestions and preferences that complement existing expert assessments. General practitioners should be more consistently involved in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of measures to stabilize primary care.
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.