ArticleBMC primary care2024
Where do UK clinicians find information at the point of care? A pragmatic, exploratory study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo describe where clinical information is contemporarily and commonly found in UK primary care, what is favoured by clinicians, and whether this is (1) publicly funded (2) has commercial potential conflicts of interest. DESIGN AND
settingA mixed methods study, consisting of (1) site visits to general practices in Scotland, (2) online questionnaire, focused on UK general practice (3) analysis of materials cited by professionals.
methodsData about sources of clinical information used was obtained verbally, visually and via search histories on computers from visits. This was used to inform a questionnaire in which primary care clinicians in the four nations of the UK were invited to participate. This obtained data about the information sources used and preferred by clinicians. This information was searched for data about funding and conflicts of interest.
resultsOver 2022, four practices were visited. 337 clinicians, 280 of whom were general practitioners completed an online questionnaire. 136 different resources were identified. These were mainly websites but sources of information included colleagues, either in practice or through online networks, apps, local guidelines, health charities, and learning resources aimed at GPs. Of these, 70 were not publicly funded, and were a mixture of membership organisations, charities, or sponsored venues.
conclusionsPrimary care clinicians obtain information for themselves and patients from a wide variety of sources. Funding is from a variety of sources and some contain advertising and/or sponsorship, risking commercial bias. PROTOCOL: Pre-published at https://osf.io/wrzqk .
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.