Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615154›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2026

Wellbeing at work among GPs working in multidisciplinary primary care teams: a cross-sectional study.

Christine Cohidon, Adeline Cachou de Camaret, Nicolas Senn, Pascal Wild

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Christine CohidonDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and Public Health,University of Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland christine.cohidon@unisante.ch.
Adeline Cachou de CamaretDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and Public Health,University of Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Family Medicine, Center for Primary Care and Public Health,University of Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland.
Pascal WildPW Consulting, Laxou, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTransforming primary care (PC) through the development of multidisciplinary teams can represent a challenge in terms of occupational wellbeing.

aimTo investigate associations between occupational stress, job satisfaction among GPs, and the professional composition of PC teams. DESIGN &

settingWe conducted a secondary analysis of the data from 11 Western countries that participated in the 2019 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians (

methodPC practice types (

resultsWorking in multidisciplinary teams, when compared with traditional (GP-centred) practice, was associated with higher occupational wellbeing, both through lower occupational stress (odds ratio [OR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.68 to 0.87) and greater job satisfaction (OR 1.43, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.62). This positive association was also observed in psychologist-centred practices for occupational stress (OR 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.93) and for job satisfaction (OR 1.24, 95% CI = 1.09 to 1.42). Working in nurse-centred practices was associated with greater satisfaction but only in the smallest practices (OR 1.59, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.22) with <1.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) GPs.

conclusionPositive associations between multidisciplinary PC teams and occupational wellbeing are important results for the future of healthcare systems in Western countries, providing interesting avenues for improvements for healthcare professionals and policymakers.

Indexed as

general practitionersjob satisfactionprimary health caretypologywellbeing

Identifiers

PMID40615154
PMCPMC13540352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.