Evidence mapPaperPMID 40360194Full record

ArticleBJGP open2025

COVID-19 and patient-reported experience of general practice in England: an evaluation study.

Paul Allanson, Paul Logan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Paul AllansonSchool of Business, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK p.f.allanson@dundee.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9799-8425
Paul LoganSchool of Economics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to a rapid transformation of the operating model for GP practices in England, with a switch towards the use of remote rather than face-to-face appointments.

aimTo assess changes in the quality of general practice in England over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic based on patients' views of their experiences. DESIGN &

settingAnalysis of practice-level multicategory response data on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) from annual GP Patient Surveys from 2018-2023.

methodHealthcare quality changes (HQC) at both practice and national levels were assessed. An index sensitive to changes in the distribution of patient responses was used across the full set of PREM response categories, not just in the proportion meeting a binary quality threshold.

resultsPatients' reported experience of general practice improved nationally between the 2020 and 2021 surveys, in spite of the restrictions on the operation of GP practices. The reported experiences then fell sharply between 2021 and 2022 before resuming the pre-pandemic downward trend. Variation in HQCs at the practice level was considerable between all consecutive years.

conclusionChanges in patients' reports of their experiences of general practice over the course of the pandemic reflected broader shifts in public attitudes towards the NHS as well as real changes in the nature and quality of service delivery.

Indexed as

COVID-19quality assurancesocial sciencesstatistics

Identifiers

PMID40360194
PMCPMC12820499

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.