↓ Skip to main content

The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England’s NHS: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England’s NHS: a systematic review
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x694997
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa M Pettigrew, Stephanie Kumpunen, Nicholas Mays, Rebecca Rosen, Rachel Posaner

Abstract

Over the past decade, collaboration between general practices in England to form new provider networks and large-scale organisations has been driven largely by grassroots action among GPs. However, it is now being increasingly advocated for by national policymakers. Expectations of what scaling up general practice in England will achieve are significant. To review the evidence of the impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations in England. Systematic review. Embase, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for studies reporting the impact on clinical processes and outcomes, patient experience, workforce satisfaction, or costs of new forms of provider collaborations between general practices in England. A total of 1782 publications were screened. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and four examined the same general practice networks, limiting generalisability. Substantial financial investment was required to establish the networks and the associated interventions that were targeted at four clinical areas. Quality improvements were achieved through standardised processes, incentives at network level, information technology-enabled performance dashboards, and local network management. The fifth study of a large-scale multisite general practice organisation showed that it may be better placed to implement safety and quality processes than conventional practices. However, unintended consequences may arise, such as perceptions of disenfranchisement among staff and reductions in continuity of care. Good-quality evidence of the impacts of scaling up general practice provider organisations in England is scarce. As more general practice collaborations emerge, evaluation of their impacts will be important to understand which work, in which settings, how, and why.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 20 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 19 October 2023.
All research outputs
#932,829
of 25,287,709 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#414
of 4,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,776
of 457,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#13
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,287,709 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,695 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 457,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.