ArticleBMC primary care2026
Construction of an index system for workplace services by family doctors in China: a two-round Delphi study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary health care for young and middle-aged individuals is often overlooked, with insufficient placed on workplace services provided by family doctors. This study aims to establish expert consensus on a comprehensive set of scientific and systematic indicators for workplace services provided by family doctors.
methodsBased on prior literature and the established Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) model, we designed two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. A panel of 35 experts from diverse fields-including academia, medical institutions, and relevant health authorities-was composed, collectively possessing substantial expertise in healthcare delivery. The experts indicated their levels of agreement regarding the importance of different indicators for assessing workplace services provided by family doctors. Consensus was defined as achieving a threshold of 70% agreement.
resultsAfter two Delphi rounds, 42 out of 46 indicators reached high consensus, with authority coefficients > 0.7 and coefficients of variation < 0.25. Consensus on high importance (scores 7-9) ranged between 71.43% and 97.14% across four dimensions: organizational structure and management (5 indicators, 88.57%-94.29% consensus); content and form of services (17 indicators, 77.14%-94.29% consensus); synergy, incentive, and feedback mechanisms (10 indicators, 85.71%-97.14% consensus); and effectiveness of services (10 indicators, 71.43%-85.71% consensus).
conclusionsThis study establishes four dimensions and 42 potential indicators that serve as a foundational framework for assessing and improving workplace services offered by family doctors, and provide essential guidance for health management among individuals in the workplace. The high consensus achieved among experts concerning specific indicators associated with such workplace services prompts their practical implementation to provide an objective basis for evidence-based health management within workplace populations.
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.