ArticleBMC primary care2025
Experiences of quality cluster meetings in general practice - Findings from a national survey two years after initiation of quality clusters in Denmark.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new national model for quality improvement in general practice based on the concept of quality clusters was introduced in Denmark in 2018. A quality cluster is a local group of general practitioners (GPs) meeting regularly to engage in quality improvement on self-selected topics.
aimTo explore (1) GPs' experiences of cluster meetings, and (2) associations between meeting experiences and self-reported benefits of participation.
designA national cross-sectional survey study in general practice. In 2020, a questionnaire regarding quality clusters was sent to all Danish GPs (n = 3432). GPs self-reported benefits from cluster participation comprised: overall benefit, changes in clinical organization and workflow, changes in drug prescriptions, improved knowledge of guidelines, and improved patient care.
results1219 GPs (36%) participated. Results showed that cluster meetings were partly or fully perceived to be well organized (89%) and focused on relevant topics (89%), and that meetings took place in a friendly atmosphere (90%) where experiences were shared (93%). Two-thirds of the GPs found that the data was useful (67%), that their cluster showed a high level of commitment (66%), and that agreement was easily reached (61%). Meetings which were perceived as productive, with useful data, and with a high level of commitment were associated with statistically significantly higher odds for reporting benefits across all self-reported benefits investigated.
conclusionOverall, cluster meetings were perceived positively by the GPs and associated with benefits when experienced as productive, with useful data, and a high level of commitment.
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.