↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions to increase or decrease the length of primary care physicians' consultation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
66 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
200 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Interventions to increase or decrease the length of primary care physicians' consultation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003540.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew D Wilson, Susan Childs, Daniela C. Gonçalves‐Bradley, Greg J Irving

Abstract

Observational studies have shown differences in process and outcome between the consultations of primary care physicians whose average consultation lengths differ. These differences may be due to self selection. This is the first update of the original review. To assess the effects of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. We searched the following electronic databases until 4 January 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions to alter the length of primary care physicians' consultations. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies using agreed criteria and resolved disagreements by discussion. We attempted to contact authors of primary studies with missing data. Given the heterogeneity of studies, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes using the GRADE approach and have presented the results in a narrative summary. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the UK, and tested short-term changes in the consultation time allocated to each patient. Overall, our confidence in the results was very low; most studies had a high risk of bias, particularly due to non-random allocation of participants and the absence of data on participants' characteristics and small sample sizes. We are uncertain whether altering appointment length increases primary care consultation length, number of referrals and investigations, prescriptions, or patient satisfaction based on very low-certainty evidence. None of the studies reported on the effects of altering the length of consultation on resources used. We did not find sufficient evidence to support or refute a policy of altering the lengths of primary care physicians' consultations. It is possible that these findings may change if high-quality trials are reported in the future. Further trials are needed that focus on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 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 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 14%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 62 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Psychology 17 9%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 70 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#891,945
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,745
of 12,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,626
of 349,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 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 12,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 349,903 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 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.