↓ 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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 37 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 39 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 June 2021.
All research outputs
#3,757,905
of 23,692,259 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,637
of 7,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,814
of 332,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#66
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,692,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 332,464 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.