↓ Skip to main content

Associations between diagnostic activity and measures of patient experience in primary care: a cross-sectional ecological study of English general practices

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Associations between diagnostic activity and measures of patient experience in primary care: a cross-sectional ecological study of English general practices
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, December 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x694097
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgios Lyratzopoulos, Silvia C Mendonca, Carolynn Gildea, Sean McPhail, Michael D Peake, Greg Rubin, Hardeep Singh, William Hamilton, Fiona M Walter, Martin Roland, Gary A Abel

Abstract

Lower use of endoscopies and urgent referrals for suspected cancer has been linked to poorer outcomes for patients with cancer; it is important to examine potential predictors of variable use. To examine the associations between general practice measures of patient experience and practice use of endoscopies or urgent referrals for suspected cancer. Cross-sectional ecological analysis in English general practices. Data were taken from the GP Patient Survey and the Cancer Services Public Health Profiles. After adjustment for practice population characteristics, practice-level associations were examined between the use of endoscopy and urgent referrals for suspected cancer, and the ability to book an appointment (used as proxy for ease of access), the ability to see a preferred doctor (used as proxy for relational continuity), and doctor/nurse communication skills. Taking into account practice scores for the ability to book an appointment, practices rated higher for the proxy measure of relational continuity used urgent referrals and endoscopies less often (for example, 30% lower urgent referral and 15% lower gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). In contrast, practices rated higher for doctor communication skills used urgent referrals and endoscopies more often (for example, 26% higher urgent referral and 17% higher gastroscopy rates between practices in the 90th/10th centiles, respectively). Patients with cancer in practices that were rated higher for doctor communication skills were less likely to be diagnosed as emergencies (1.7% lower between practices in the 90th than in the 10th centile). Practices where patients rated doctor communication highly were more likely to investigate and refer patients urgently but, in contrast, practices where patients could see their preferred doctor more readily were less likely to do so. This article discusses the possible implications of these findings for clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 32%
Researcher 8 32%
Other 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 11 44%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#516,726
of 13,458,925 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#272
of 2,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,401
of 386,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#6
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,458,925 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 2,903 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 386,549 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.