↓ Skip to main content

Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, April 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, April 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x695813
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian D Nicholson, Clare R Goyder, Clare R Bankhead, Berit S Toftegaard, Peter W Rose, Hans Thulesius, Peter Vedsted, Rafael Perera

Abstract

It is unclear to what extent primary care practitioners (PCPs) should retain responsibility for follow-up to ensure that patients are monitored until their symptoms or signs are explained. To explore the extent to which PCPs retain responsibility for diagnostic follow-up actions across 11 international jurisdictions. A secondary analysis of survey data from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. The authors counted the proportion of 2879 PCPs who retained responsibility for each area of follow-up (appointments, test results, and non-attenders). Proportions were weighted by the sample size of each jurisdiction. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model, and UK estimates were compared with non-UK ones. Free-text responses were analysed to contextualise quantitative findings using a modified grounded theory approach. PCPs varied in their retention of responsibility for follow-up from 19% to 97% across jurisdictions and area of follow-up. Test reconciliation was inadequate in most jurisdictions. Significantly fewer UK PCPs retained responsibility for test result communication (73% versus 85%, P = 0.04) and non-attender follow-up (78% versus 93%, P<0.01) compared with non-UK PCPs. PCPs have developed bespoke, inconsistent solutions to follow-up. In cases of greatest concern, 'double safety netting' is described, where both patient and PCP retain responsibility. The degree to which PCPs retain responsibility for follow-up is dependent on their level of concern about the patient and their primary care system's properties. Integrated systems to support follow-up are at present underutilised, and research into their development, uptake, and effectiveness seems warranted.

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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Psychology 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,105,915
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#530
of 4,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,460
of 326,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#14
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 326,557 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.