↓ Skip to main content

The benefits of co-location in primary care practices: the perspectives of general practitioners and patients in 34 countries

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
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 (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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 benefits of co-location in primary care practices: the perspectives of general practitioners and patients in 34 countries
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2913-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Bonciani, W. Schäfer, S. Barsanti, S. Heinemann, P. P. Groenewegen

Abstract

There is no clear evidence as to whether the co-location of primary care professionals in the same facility positively influences their way of working and the quality of healthcare as perceived by patients. The aim of this study was to identify the relationships between general practitioner (GP) co-location with other GPs and/or other professionals and the GP outcomes and patients' experiences. We wanted to test whether GP co-location is related to a broader range of services provided, the use of clinical governance tools and inter-professional collaboration, and whether the patients of co-located GPs perceive a better quality of care in terms of accessibility, comprehensiveness and continuity of care with their GPs. The source of data was the QUALICOPC study (Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe), which involved surveys of GPs and their patients in 34 countries, mostly in Europe. In order to study the relationships between GP co-location and both GPs' outcomes and patients' experience, multilevel linear regression analysis was carried out. The GP questionnaire was filled in by 7183 GPs and the patient experience questionnaire by 61,931 patients. Being co-located with at least one other professional is the most common situation of the GPs involved in the study. Compared with single-handed GP practices, GP co-location are positively associated with the GP outcomes. Considering the patients' perspective, comprehensiveness of care has the strongest negative relationship of GP co-location of all the dimensions of patient experiences analysed. The paper highlights that GP mono- and multi-disciplinary co-location is related to positive outcomes at a GP level, such as a broader provision of technical procedures, increased collaboration among different providers and wider coordination with secondary care. However, GP co-location, particularly in a multidisciplinary setting, is related to less positive patient experiences, especially in countries with health systems characterised by a weak primary care structure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Social Sciences 4 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 12 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,729,740
of 15,922,425 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,578
of 5,494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,432
of 278,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,425 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 278,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them