↓ Skip to main content

Physician Associate and General Practitioner Consultations: A Comparative Observational Video Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
reddit
1 Redditor
bluesky
1 Bluesky user

Readers on

mendeley
75 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.
Article details
Title
Physician Associate and General Practitioner Consultations: A Comparative Observational Video Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0160902
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Physician associates, known internationally as physician assistants, are a mid-level practitioner, well established in the United States of America but new to the United Kingdom. A small number work in primary care under the supervision of general practitioners, where they most commonly see patients requesting same day appointments for new problems. As an adjunct to larger study, we investigated the quality of the patient consultation of physician associates in comparison to that of general practitioners. We conducted a comparative observational study using video recordings of consultations by volunteer physician associates and general practitioners with consenting patients in single surgery sessions. Recordings were assessed by experienced general practitioners, blinded to the type of the consulting practitioner, using the Leicester Assessment Package. Assessors were asked to comment on the safety of the recorded consultations and to attempt to identify the type of practitioner. Ratings were compared across practitioner type, alongside the number of presenting complaints discussed in each consultation and the number of these which were acute, minor, or regarding a chronic condition. We assessed 62 consultations (41 general practitioner and 21 physician associates) from five general practitioners and four physician associates. All consultations were assessed as safe; but general practitioners were rated higher than PAs in all elements of consultation. The general practitioners were more likely than physician associates to see people with multiple presenting complaints (p<0.0001) and with chronic disease related complaints (p = 0.008). Assessors correctly identified general practitioner consultations but not physician associates. The Leicester Assessment Package had limited inter-rater and intra-rater reliability. The physician associate consultations were with a less complex patient group. They were judged as competent and safe, although general practitioner consultations, unsurprisingly, were rated as more competent. Physician associates offer a complementary addition to the medical workforce in general practice.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Professor 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 June 2026.
All research outputs
#4,783,275
of 34,271,801 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#48,878
of 224,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,126
of 341,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#982
of 4,399 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,271,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 341,549 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,399 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.