Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8205021›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1994

Using patient and general practice characteristics to explain variations in cervical smear uptake rates.

F A Majeed, D G Cook, H R Anderson, S Hilton, S Bunn, C Stones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Do standardised patients lose their confidence in primary medical care? Personal experiences of standardised patients with GPs.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006
    Article
  14. Best practice in primary care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006
    Article
  15. Access to health care for ethnic minority populations.Postgraduate medical journal · 2005
    Review
  16. Cervical screening and health inequality in England in the 1990s.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2003
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Relationship style between GPs and community mental health teams affects referral rates.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2002
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F A MajeedDepartment of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London.
D G Cook
H R Anderson
S Hilton
S Bunn
C Stones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo produce practice and patient variables for general practices from census and family health services authority data, and to determine the importance of these variables in explaining variation in cervical smear uptake rates between practices.

designPopulation based study examining variations in cervical smear uptake rates among 126 general practices using routine data.

settingMerton, Sutton, and Wandsworth Family Health Services Authority, which covers parts of inner and outer London.

main outcome measurePercentage of women aged 25-64 years registered with a general practitioner who had undergone a cervical smear test during the five and a half years preceding 31 March 1992.

resultsCervical smear uptake rates varied from 16.5% to 94.1%. The estimated percentage of practice population from ethnic minority groups correlated negatively with uptake rates (r = -0.42), as did variables associated with social deprivation such as overcrowding (r = -0.42), not owning a car (r = -0.41), and unemployment (r = -0.40). Percentage of practice population under 5 years of age correlated positively with uptake rate (r = 0.42). Rates were higher in practices with a female partner than in those without (66.6% v 49.1%; difference 17.5% (95% confidence interval 10.5% to 24.5%)), and in computerised than in non-computerised practices (64.5% v 50.5%; 14.0% (6.4% to 21.6%)). Rates were higher in larger practices. In a stepwise multiple regression model that explained 52% of variation, five factors were significant predictors of uptake rates: presence of a female partner; children under 5; overcrowding; number of women aged 35-44 as percentage of all women aged 25-64; change of address in past year.

conclusionsOver half of variation in cervical smear uptake rates can be explained by patient and practice variables derived from census and family health services authority data; these variables may have a role in explaining variations in performance of general practices and in producing adjusted measures of practice performance. Practices with a female partner had substantially higher uptake rates.

Indexed as

AdultAge FactorsDemographyFamily PracticeFemaleHumansLondonMiddle AgedPartnership PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CareRegression AnalysisSocioeconomic FactorsVaginal Smears

Identifiers

PMID8205021
PMCPMC2540205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.