Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Vedsted, P.
Right arrow Articles by Olesen, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Vedsted, P.
Right arrow Articles by Olesen, F.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 19, No. 4, 339-343
© Oxford University Press 2002


Health Services Research

Patient and GP agreement on aspects of general practice care

Peter Vedsteda,b, Jan Mainzb, Torsten Lauritzenb and Frede Olesena

a The Research Unit for General Practice and
b Department of General Practice, University of Aarhus, Vennelyst Boulevard 6, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.

Peter Vedsted; E-mail: pv{at}alm.au.dk

Objective. The aim of the present study was to compare patient and GP priorities for general practice care.

Methods. A questionnaire survey was carried out in general practice in Denmark which included 900 consecutive patients aged over 18 years from 15 practices collected in 1995, and 919 randomly sampled GPs in 1999. The postal questionnaire, developed by the EUROPEP group, contained 40 questions about eight aspects of primary care. Participants were asked to state their priorities for each question ranging from ‘not at all important’ to ‘most important’. A reminder questionnaire was sent to non-responders after 2 weeks. Top priority percentages (‘very/ most important’) were calculated for each question as were differences between participant groups.

Results. Questionnaires were answered by 771 (85.7%) patients and 584 (64.2%) GPs. Their priorities were highly correlated (r = 0.754, P < 0.001). Patients gave higher priority than GPs to availability and accessibility of the practice and seeing the same GP. The GP should be capable of providing information on illness, investigations and treatments and patient associations, and should know the patient's history and be regularly updated through courses.

Conclusions. Patient and GP priorities for primary care were highly correlated. The higher priority awarded by patients than by GPs to specific aspects of primary care should be acknowledged when organizing and developing general practice.

Keywords. Denmark, family practice, preferences, priorities, questionnaire.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann Fam MedHome page
N. Kerse, S. Buetow, A. G. Mainous III, G. Young, G. Coster, and B. Arroll
Physician-Patient Relationship and Medication Compliance: A Primary Care Investigation
Ann. Fam. Med, September 1, 2004; 2(5): 455 - 461.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Qual Saf Health CareHome page
P Durieux, A Bissery, S Dubois, I Gasquet, and J Coste
Comparison of health care professionals' self-assessments of standards of care and patients' opinions on the care they received in hospital: observational study
Qual. Saf. Health Care, June 1, 2004; 13(3): 198 - 202.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Fam PractHome page
S. Buetow, V. Adair, G. Coster, M. Hight, B. Gribben, and E. Mitchell
GP care for moderate to severe asthma in children: what do infrequently attending mothers disagree with and why?
Fam. Pract., April 1, 2003; 20(2): 155 - 161.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.