ArticleBMC primary care2024
GPs' perspectives on care models integrating medical and non-medical services in primary care-a representative survey in Germany.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Is social prescribing feasible in Türkiye? Young family doctors' perspectives: a focus group study.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- General practitioners' awareness, use, and perceptions of social prescribing in Austria.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Social prescribing as a tool for integrated care-insights from a cross-sectional study with German general practitioners.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
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
backgroundHealth-related social problems are common in primary care. Different care models integrating medical and non-medical services in primary care have been tested and established nationally and internationally, such as social prescribing, social work in primary care, health kiosks and integrated primary care centres. The aim of our study was to explore the perspective of general practitioners (GPs) working in Germany on these four care models regarding their meaningfulness and if they would like to use them. Secondary objective was to explore factors influencing this assessment.
methodsWe conducted a survey of a representative sample of GPs working in Germany. The questionnaire included questions on the assessment of the care models' meaningfulness and whether the GPs would like to use them. The analysis was carried out descriptively and using linear regression.
resultsOne thousand four hundred thirty-nine GPs took part in the survey. Social prescribing and social work in primary care were rated as the most meaningful concepts. Over 65% of the GPs believed that using at least one of the care models would be beneficial. One in four GPs would even welcome the idea of integrating their practice into an integrated primary care center. Older age and male gender were associated with a more negative assessment of the care models.
conclusionsGerman GPs consider integrating medical and non-medical services in primary care to be meaningful, yet they are somewhat skeptical about its practical implementation in daily practice. However, younger GPs in Germany are significantly more receptive to these models.
trial registrationGerman Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS-ID: DRKS00032585; Registration Date: September 1, 2023).
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.