ArticleBMC primary care2026
Sharing general practice data: a qualitative study with Australian general practitioners.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing demand for access to general practice data for research and policy development presents ethical challenges for Australian general practitioners (GPs), particularly around patient consent, privacy, and trust. As frontline custodians of patient information, GPs must navigate the tension between supporting public benefit and upholding their professional obligations to confidentiality and autonomy.
methodsThis qualitative study involved interviews with 19 Australian GPs who reported limited experience with secondary use of general practice data. Participants were recruited via professional networks and interviewed using open-ended questions informed by prior community jury recommendations. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 12, with an ethical lens applied to identify key themes related to trust, consent, and data governance.
resultsGPs expressed broad support for using general practice data in research but emphasised the centrality of trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Most participants preferred an opt-in consent model, citing transparency and respect for patient autonomy. Concerns were raised about privacy breaches, re-identification risks, and the ethical implications of remuneration. Organisational constraints, such as time pressures and limited decision-making authority within practices, were identified as barriers to implementing ethical data-sharing practices.
conclusionAustralian GPs are pivotal in shaping ethical and effective models for data sharing in general practice. However, substantial policy, educational, and ethical work is needed to address their concerns. Building trust, ensuring transparency, and respecting patient autonomy are essential to securing GP support for routine data collection. A collaborative approach involving government, community, and general practice stakeholders is necessary to develop acceptable and sustainable data-sharing frameworks.
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.