ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Factors influencing confidence and trust in health professionals: a cross-sectional study of English general practices.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProfound changes to English general practice aim to improve access to appointments, however, how these changes might affect patients' confidence and trust in healthcare professionals is unknown.
aimTo determine whether appointments that were 1) face to face with any type of healthcare professional, or 2) with GPs in any mode, were associated with variations in confidence and trust in the professional last seen. DESIGN AND
settingA practice-level cross-sectional study of 6196 English general practices was conducted from 2023-2024, using published data.
methodIn a weighted regression model, the outcome was patient-reported confidence and trust in healthcare professionals. The two variables of interest were the percentages of appointments with GPs in any mode or face to face any healthcare professional and the nine covariates were continuity, access, whether patients' needs were met, the annual appointment rate, practice list size, NHS region, deprivation, and practice populations' age and ethnicity.
resultsIn the model, higher confidence and trust was associated with higher percentages of patients seen by GPs in any mode or face to face any healthcare professional, also with increased continuity, appointment rates, percentages of patients having their needs met, percentages of patients aged >18 years, and percentages of White ethnicity. Confidence and trust was higher in all regions compared with London. Lower confidence and trust was associated with higher deprivation. There was no association with improved access or list size.
conclusionThis study cannot establish causation but does suggest that strategies to improve access that lower continuity, reduce the percentage of appointments that are with GPs, and increase remote consulting may lead to lower confidence and trust in healthcare professionals.
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.