↓ Skip to main content

The Friends and Family Test in general practice in England: a qualitative study of the views of staff and patients

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Friends and Family Test in general practice in England: a qualitative study of the views of staff and patients
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, April 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x690617
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tommaso Manacorda, Bob Erens, Nick Black, Nicholas Mays

Abstract

The Friends and Family Test (FFT) was introduced into general practices in England in 2015 to provide staff with information on patients' views of their experience of care. To examine the views of practice staff and patients of the FFT, how the results are used, and to recommend improvements. A qualitative study of a national representative sample of 42 general practices. Semi-structured interviews with 43 clinicians, 48 practice managers, and 27 patient representatives. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Although the FFT imposed little extra work on practices, it was judged to provide little additional insight over existing methods and to have had minimal impact on improving quality. Staff lacked confidence in the accuracy of the results given the lack of a representative sample and the risk of bias. The FFT question was judged to be inappropriate as in many areas there was no alternative practice for patients to choose, patients' individual needs would not be the same as those of their friends and relatives, and an overall assessment failed to identify any specific aspects of good- or poor-quality care. Despite being intended to support local quality improvement, there was widespread unease about the FFT, with many responders perceiving it as a tool for national bodies to monitor general practices. If the use of a single-item questionnaire is to continue, changes should be made to the wording. It should be focused on stimulating local quality improvement, and practice staff should be supported to use the results effectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,655,909
of 25,639,676 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,842
of 4,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,678
of 324,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#44
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,639,676 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,922 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.