ArticleBJGP open2025
Healthcare users' evaluations of general practice: a survey among Danish men aged 45-70 years.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge about healthcare users' evaluations of general practice is relatively limited.
aimWe aimed to investigate Danish men's evaluations of general practice health care and different aspects of GPs' communication with patients. DESIGN &
settingSecondary analyses of data from a web-based survey of 6756 Danish men aged 45-70 years.
methodWe used municipality-level information from registries, self-reported sociodemographic data, personality characteristics, and 5-point Likert scale evaluations of health care and communication in general practice. Comparisons were made between groups using multivariable linear regression.
resultsThe response rate was 28%. A large majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that their GP treatment had been 'almost perfect', with slightly fewer responding that their GP was good at showing consideration for them. The latter item was, however, reversed, making comparisons difficult and all differences were small. Older healthcare users evaluated health care higher than did younger healthcare users; higher scores on the extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness personality dimensions generally were associated with higher evaluation scores, whereas the opposite tended to be true for responders with higher neuroticism scores. When not controlling for multiplicity, participants in rural areas tended to evaluate the explanation of medical procedures with lower scores; participants with cerebrovascular disease and those residing in higher tax income areas tended to evaluate GP care less positively in general.
conclusionDespite an overall high evaluation of GP care, evaluations may vary, including among different groups of healthcare users.
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.