Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40518273›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2025

Evaluation of a data-driven recall system in general practice.

Tim Benson, Alex Benson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tim BensonR-Outcomes Ltd, Newbury, UK tim.benson@r-outcomes.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2101-1353
Alex BensonR-Outcomes Ltd, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis paper presents a mixed-methods evaluation of the spread of the Target Health Solutions data-driven recall system to seven general practices (GPs). The aim was to assess implementation success, changes in staff perceptions and impact on patient recall.

methodData was collected about recall rates at each practice. Staff (n=128) answered surveys before (32 questions) and after (51 questions) implementation of the system.

resultsOverall, there were substantial quantitative improvements in recall. Performance was lower in some practices, which continued to run their existing recall systems alongside the new system.Staff perceived significant improvement in their recall systems, although other areas were not affected. Challenges to implementation included running parallel systems, workload pressures and training. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that strong leadership and focused implementation planning are needed for successful adoption of this type of innovation in GP.

Indexed as

General PracticeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesDiffusion of InnovationEvaluation methodologyGeneral practiceInformation technologySurveys

Identifiers

PMID40518273
PMCPMC12314807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.