ArticleThe European journal of general practice2024
Task shifting to improve practice efficiency: A survey among general practitioners in non-urban Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Article in The European journal of general practice, 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.
- Interprofessional collaboration in primary care in Germany - collective irresponsibility, one-way-street or colourful bouquet of services? A qualitative study with stakeholders from various professions.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Are nurse-led patient consultations acceptable for the general practitioners and practice nurses in Germany? Results from a cross-sectional survey in two federal states.Family medicine and community health · 2025Article
- Work-related stressful events and burnout experienced by residents and specialists in German neurology: prevalence, causes, and coping strategies derived from a nationwide survey.Neurological research and practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGermany is challenged by an increasing shortage in general practice services, especially in non-urban areas. Task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to other health professionals may improve practice efficiency to address this mismatch.
objectivesExploring GPs' motives and beliefs towards task shifting in non-urban Germany and identifying potential factors influencing these.
methodsThe cross-sectional survey was disseminated by mail in three waves between July 2021 and August 2022 among all GPs in non-urban Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. It included items on demographics and practice characteristics as well as 15 Likert-scale items addressing motives and beliefs towards task shifting, based on the Theoretical Domain Framework. Likert-scale items were analysed descriptively, influencing factors on motives and beliefs were identified using multiple linear regression.
resultsResponse rate was 24.2% (281/1162), with respondents comparable in age and gender to all GPs in Baden-Wuerttemberg. GPs' motives and beliefs towards task shifting are positive overall. The majority expects task shifting to reduce their workload (87.9%) and increase practice efficiency (74.7%). They are open to shift additional tasks to other professionals (69.1%), even in the currently prohibited form of substitution (51.2%). Motives and beliefs were significantly more positive among younger GPs and those participating in the GP-centred care programme.
conclusionThis study describes GPs' motives and beliefs towards task shifting in non-urban Germany. Identifying younger GPs and those participating in the GP-centred care programme as particularly endorsing may help design future interventions aiming to improve efficiency in general practice in non-urban Germany.
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.