ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Workload and funding in general practice: a nationwide cross-sectional study in England.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunding based on population need is key to equitable health care. The formula for general practice capitation payments in England has not been updated for over 20 years and is based on crude workload weights.
aimTo estimate and describe the uplifts in practice payments required to bring them in line with updated and more precise needs-based workload weights. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional study assessing the most updated routinely available data on 6213 non-atypical general practices in England with >1000 registered patients and complete information on payments as of 1 April 2024.
methodUpdated workload weights were applied to publicly available practice data on patient age and gender, new registration, ethnicity, deprivation, and prevalence of 20 long-term conditions. The practice payment provided for input price variation was removed and the current workload payment per weighted patient for each practice and the funding required to uplift all practices to minimum thresholds were calculated.
resultsWorkload payment per patient was £92.66 on average, varying from £86.72 in the lowest to £99.91 in the highest deprivation decile. Workload payment per weighted patient varied from £81.40 (5th percentile) to £107.10 (95th percentile), and from £89.69 in the lowest to £96.40 in the highest deprivation decile. Uplifting payments to a minimum of £102.46 per weighted patient (90th percentile value) would increase total payments by 11.6% (£677.77 million per year) and payments per patient to £99.75 in the lowest and £108.18 in the highest deprivation decile.
conclusionThe workload element of the general practice funding formula should use updated weights. Additional concerns related to equity in outcomes and underfunding of practices in deprived areas should be addressed by adjustments or revisions of other elements of the funding formula.
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.