Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40546342›Full record

ArticleHealth services insights2025

Acceptability of Components for a Mandatory Quality Improvement Framework: A Survey Among Swiss General Practitioners.

David Wirth, Oliver Senn, Jakob M Burgstaller, Sima Djalali, Leander Muheim, Adrian Rohrbasser, Joel Lehmann, Stefan Markun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

David WirthInstitute of Primary Care, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1404-5466
Oliver SennInstitute of Primary Care, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4422-7250
Jakob M BurgstallerInstitute of Primary Care, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sima DjalaliZollikerberg Hospital, Clinic for Internal Medicine/Interdisciplinary Emergency Ward and SGAIM Quality Commission, Zollikerberg, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8183-8547
Leander MuheimmediX zürich AG, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7932-8134
Adrian RohrbasserMedbase Wil Friedtal, Wil, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6718-6821
Joel LehmannEQUAM Stiftung, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan MarkunInstitute of Primary Care, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3317-0957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In Switzerland, recently introduced legislation requires the implementation of a framework for mandatory quality improvement at the level of individual general practitioners (GPs) and includes the introduction of quality indicators (QIs) amongst other components. The GP-sided acceptance of potential components of such a framework is important to its success. Objectives: To identify components of a potential framework for mandatory quality improvement that are most likely to be accepted by Swiss GPs. Design: Cross-sectional web-based survey conducted among employed and self-employed Swiss GPs in 2024. Methods: The survey was distributed to 1103 Swiss GPs via their physician networks. The survey inquired the acceptability of 62 possible components of a mandatory framework for quality improvement. Components were categorized as "acceptable" if they were rated as "acceptable" or "very acceptable" by more than 50% of participants, in contrast to those rated as "neutral" or "not acceptable." Results: A total of 244 GPs participated (participation rate 22.1%, 53.0% male, 51.2% <50 years old, 50.8% employed). The majority of participants rated 31 of the proposed 62 components as acceptable. Among these were QIs pertaining to structures and processes of care (rated as acceptable by 58.3%-83.4%) and sharing QI achievement data with peers from different group practices and physician networks (53.9%-92.2%). A majority of participants accepted physician networks, medical associations, and academic institutions as entities that could establish QIs and manage QI data (acceptance 62.1%-88.8%). Conclusions: Swiss GPs appear to accept QIs that reflect structures and processes of care established by physician networks, medical associations or academic institutions, exclusively shared among their peers.

Indexed as

accessand evaluationhealth carehealth care qualityhealth policyphysicianprimary health care; general practitionersquality assurancequality improvementsurveys and questionnairesSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID40546342
PMCPMC12182608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.