ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Implications of skill-mix change in general practice: secondary analysis of data from the GP Patient Survey.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe shift in policy and practice towards multiprofessional team working has potential implications for patients' experience.
aimTo examine the relationship between delivery of care and patient-reported confidence and trust, and perception of needs met. DESIGN AND
settingSecondary analysis of data from the GP Patient Survey (2023), including 759 149 responders from 6418 English general practices.
methodMultivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the association between primary outcomes (confidence and trust, and perception of needs met) and patient characteristics, as well as to explore relationships with different combinations of type of health professional and mode of appointment.
resultsWhen patients are uncertain what type of health professional their appointment was with, odds of expressing confidence and trust decreased by 50%-80% compared with those who saw a GP at their practice. A 50% decrease in the odds of reporting confidence and trust was associated with speaking to a health professional on the phone or by video (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.55 to 0.57 and aOR 0.48, 95% CI = 0.42 to 0.55, respectively), compared with patients whose appointment was at their general practice in person. Similar trends were observed for patient-reported needs met.
conclusionPatients who were confused who their general practice appointment was with experienced lower trust and were more likely to perceive that their needs were not met. The impact was magnified when the consultation was remote (phone, video, or message). Helping patients understand new roles and providing clarity on who the patient is seeing are essential for building patient confidence in new models of care.
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.