↓ Skip to main content

Regional variations of perceived problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients - an exploratory focus group study in urban and rural regions of northern…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Primary Care, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Regional variations of perceived problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients - an exploratory focus group study in urban and rural regions of northern Germany
Published in
BMC Primary Care, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12875-017-0637-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Hansen, N. J. Pohontsch, L. Bole, I. Schäfer, M. Scherer

Abstract

Patients from rural and urban regions should have equitable access to health care. In Germany, the physician-patient-ratio and the supply of medical services vary greatly between urban and rural areas. The aim of our study was to explore the regional variations of the perceived health care problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of affected professionals and laypersons i.e. general practitioners and their patients. We conducted 27 focus groups with general practitioners (n = 65) and patients (n = 145) from urban areas, environs and rural areas in northern Germany. Discussions were facilitated by two researchers using a semi-structured guideline. The transcripts were content analyzed using deductive and inductive categories. General practitioners and patients reported problems due to demographic change and patient behaviour, through structural inequalities and the ambulatory reimbursement system as well as with specialist care and inpatient care. A high physician density, associated with high competition between general practitioners, a high fluctuation of patients and a low status of general practitioners were the main problems reported in urban areas. In contrast, participants from rural areas reported an insufficient physician density, a lack of young recruits in primary care and a resulting increased workload as problematic. All regions are concerned with subjectively inadequate general practitioners' budgets, insufficiently compensated consultations and problems in the cooperation with specialists and inpatient care institutions. Most problems were mentioned by GPs and patients alike, but some (e.g. high competition rates in urban regions and problems with inpatient care) were only mentioned by GPs. While many problems arise in urban regions as well as in rural regions, our results support the notion that there is an urgent need for action in rural areas. Possible measures include the support of telemedicine, delegation of medical services and reoccupation of vacant practices. The attractiveness of working in rural areas for general practitioners, specialists and clinicians must be increased by consolidating and expanding rural infrastructure (e.g. child care and cultural life). The above mentioned results also indicate that the ambulatory reimbursement system should be examined regarding the reported inequalities. Measures to further enhance the cooperation between general practitioners, specialists and inpatient care should be taken to solve supra-regionally reported problems. Problems showing regional variations indicate the need for measures to balance these variations between the regions. This is the first German study to analyze subjective views of the stakeholders concerned on regionally variating problems in ambulatory care. Further studies are needed to quantify the extent of the identified problems and differences. A corresponding survey is currently under way.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 27 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 July 2022.
All research outputs
#16,735,892
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,614
of 2,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,577
of 327,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,361 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.