↓ Skip to main content

The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England’s NHS: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
29 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations on England’s NHS: a systematic review
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, February 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x694997
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luisa M Pettigrew, Stephanie Kumpunen, Nicholas Mays, Rebecca Rosen, Rachel Posaner

Abstract

Over the past decade, collaboration between general practices in England to form new provider networks and large-scale organisations has been driven largely by grassroots action among GPs. However, it is now being increasingly advocated for by national policymakers. Expectations of what scaling up general practice in England will achieve are significant. To review the evidence of the impact of new forms of large-scale general practice provider collaborations in England. Systematic review. Embase, MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium, and Social Sciences Citation Index were searched for studies reporting the impact on clinical processes and outcomes, patient experience, workforce satisfaction, or costs of new forms of provider collaborations between general practices in England. A total of 1782 publications were screened. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and four examined the same general practice networks, limiting generalisability. Substantial financial investment was required to establish the networks and the associated interventions that were targeted at four clinical areas. Quality improvements were achieved through standardised processes, incentives at network level, information technology-enabled performance dashboards, and local network management. The fifth study of a large-scale multisite general practice organisation showed that it may be better placed to implement safety and quality processes than conventional practices. However, unintended consequences may arise, such as perceptions of disenfranchisement among staff and reductions in continuity of care. Good-quality evidence of the impacts of scaling up general practice provider organisations in England is scarce. As more general practice collaborations emerge, evaluation of their impacts will be important to understand which work, in which settings, how, and why.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 25%
Student > Master 5 25%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Librarian 2 10%
Other 5 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 25%
Social Sciences 4 20%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 3 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#409,088
of 13,366,062 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#205
of 2,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,642
of 350,742 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#8
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,366,062 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 2,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 350,742 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 91% of its contemporaries.