ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2024
Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Innovation and testing in general practitioners' practice - the challenging path from idea to new practice.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality improvement work is an essential feature of healthcare services, including general practice. In this study, we aimed to gain more knowledge regarding general practitioners' (GPs) motivation for such work in their practices, as well as what kind of measures were considered motivating and feasible. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted five focus group interviews among Norwegian GPs between November 2021 and November 2022. We included 21 GPs of varying age, gender, experience, and geographic situation. The data were transcribed verbatim and analysed by Systematic Text Condensation, a thematic cross-case analysis.
resultsMany GPs had a diverse and imprecise understanding of the term quality improvement, and sound routines in everyday practice were often given as examples of quality improvement measures. There was a universal attitude that quality improvement initiatives should be close to practice, professionally relevant, and sufficiently small to be manageable. The availability of professional communities, either in the GP practices or in continuous medical education groups, was important for motivation. The role of nurses and health secretaries was highlighted as essential to achieve change. Participants commonly described negative reactions to programs that were imposed by external actors without regard for the GPs' perceived needs.
conclusionGPs were motivated for quality improvement measures provided feasibility within the framework of general practice. Well-functioning professional communities, including involvement of nurses and health-secretaries, were emphasised as requisite for quality improvement. Small scale quality improvement programs suited for the needs of general practice were well received and should be further developed.
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.