ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Counting general practitioners: a comparative repeat cross-sectional analysis of GPs in NHS general practice in England.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trends in the shortfall of English NHS general practice doctors: repeat cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been successive government promises to increase general practitioner (GP) numbers in England.
aimTo compare how NHS general practice GP numbers and trends differ depending on how GPs are defined and data are analysed. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a comparative repeat cross-sectional study of NHS general practice GP numbers in England.
methodThe study compared NHS England's General Practice Workforce GP data quarterly between September 2015 and September 2024 by headcount and full-time equivalent (FTE); with and without general practice trainees; and relative to population size.
resultsBetween September 2015 and September 2024, if counting fully qualified GPs and general practice trainees, there was an 18% (41 193 to 48 758) rise in numbers; whereas if fully qualified FTE GPs alone were counted there was a 5% reduction (29 364 to 27 966). Once growth of the population registered with an NHS general practice was considered, the trend in GPs per capita varied between a 6% rise or 15% reduction. There was an increasing difference in the number of patients per GP between practices, with a 5th to 95th percentile range of 1204 and 4139 patients per fully qualified FTE GP in 2015; by 2024 these percentiles increased to 1357 and 5559. Using Office for National Statistics (ONS) mid-year population estimates produced different results as their population estimates are lower than the total number of patients registered with an NHS general practice.
conclusionHow GPs are defined, whether working hours are considered, and what measure of population size is used affects the interpretation of workforce trends. Using fully qualified FTE GPs per capita most closely reflects GP capacity, although there are limitations to current NHS data. Reporting the spread of patients per GP at practice level is necessary to capture the widening variation in GP provision in England.
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.