SynthesisBMC primary care2026
General practice workforce retention strategies: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in BMC primary care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organisational models of general practice and internal capacity for care coordination: a mixed-methods study from the Czech Republic.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Understanding persistent GP turnover using work and personal characteristics: a retrospective observational study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Observational
- Physicians shortage in primary care: a protocol for updating a systematic review of recruitment and retention strategies.F1000Research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
objectiveWe summarise international evidence of interventions to support retention of the general practice workforce, mapping evidence by country, method and workforce group.
designUmbrella overview of reviews. We mapped evidence according to occupational group, intervention type and outcome to identify trends and gaps. Varied study designs were included, though only reviews with evaluations of workforce interventions were included. Exploratory studies describing factors associated with retention were excluded.
settingInternational primary care and general practice.
participantsGeneral practice workforce, with studies grouped by general practitioners, nurses working in general practice and mixed health professional groups.
main outcome measuresWorkforce retention, including length of employment, stability rates, settlement rates, vacancy rates, unfilled positions, turnover numbers or rates, attrition rates, intentions to stay, leave and return.
resultsOf the 4,919 articles identified through database searching (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and Medrxiv 6th February 2025) and citation tracking, we included five reviews. The majority of evidence was concentrated in Australia and the US and there was a lack of policy evaluations in some fields. While stronger evidence exists for interventions such as professional development and fostering supportive environments, mixed findings were reported on financial incentives and limited formal evaluations were found for some intervention types, and professional groups.
conclusionThis overview of research underscores the need for more research evaluating interventions to support the general practice workforce, particularly across wider international settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458298What 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.