ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994
General practitioners' views about the statutory annual practice report.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stress and morale in general practice: a comparison of two health care systems.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1998Article
- Collecting data in general practice: need for standardisation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
- Practice based health needs assessment: use of four methods in a small neighbourhood.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1995Article
- Obtaining useful data from primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1994Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo ascertain the views of primary care professionals about the current purpose, uses, potential, and workload implications of the statutory general practice annual report.
designPostal questionnaire survey.
settingGeneral practices in the Northern region. SUBJECTS: All practices in the region that were singlehanded, fundholding, non-fundholding and with more than five partners, and a one in three random sample of all non-fundholding practices (n = 318).
results263 practices responded (83%). The report took a median of 12 hours to produce (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 hours; interquartile range 7-35). The main perceived purpose of the report was to monitor practice activity (165 respondents; 63% (95% confidence interval 57% to 69%)), but 44 respondents (17%; 13% to 22%) produced it only because it was contractually required. Practices included statutory and non-statutory data in these reports and would have liked comparative practice activity information (155 respondents; 59%) and "good ideas" (165 respondents; 63%) fed back to them. Respondents would have liked the annual report used to improve practice development planning (122 respondents; 46% (40% to 52%)), to facilitate audit (115 respondents; 44% (38% to 50%)), and to influence resource allocation (104 respondents; 40% (34% to 46%)). One hundred and eighteen practices (45%; 39% to 51%) would produce an annual report even if not contractually required. Data collected were perceived to be already available elsewhere.
conclusionsPrimary care professionals have concerns about the current annual report. They would prefer to collect relevant, standardised data which could lead to better audit, planning, and resource allocation.
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.