BJGP Open最新文献

{"title":"Impact of a national enrolment programme on preventive care uptake in Singapore: a cohort study of 268,315 patients.","authors":"Ai Li Ong, James A Miller, Xin Rong Ng, Khai Ee Tan, Jo-Anne E Manski-Nankervis, Bernett Tk Lee, Ming Yann Karen Ng, Sabrina Kw Wong","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0085","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preventive care uptake in Singapore remains suboptimal despite longstanding national programmes. Healthier SG, launched in July 2023, aims to strengthen primary care through empanelment, continuity, and proactive health planning, but evidence on its effectiveness is limited.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the association between Healthier SG enrolment and uptake of preventive care services.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from National Healthcare Group Polyclinics.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Adults aged≥40 years with at least two annual visits between January 2018 and September 2024 were included. Outcomes were cervical cancer screening, influenza and pneumococcal vaccination, and cardiovascular risk screening. Quarterly uptake rates were analysed across four periods: pre-COVID-19, COVID-19, post-COVID-19/pre-Healthier SG, and post-Healthier SG.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Preventive care uptake in Healthier SG enrolees demonstrated more favourable uptake trajectories across all preventive care outcomes. For cervical cancer screening, uptake declined during COVID-19 and recovered thereafter. Following Healthier SG implementation, cervical screening showed a steeper upward trend among enrolees than non-enrolees (quarterly trend change+0.57% versus+0.05%). Although vaccination uptake declined after the post-pandemic peak, reductions were less pronounced among enrolees (influenza: -0.41% versus -2.18%; pneumococcal:+0.07% versus -1.13% per quarter). Cardiovascular risk screening demonstrated a ceiling effect, with a smaller decline among enrolees than non-enrolees (-0.03% vs -0.32%). Among eligible patients, lower enrolment in ethnic minority, single, lower SES housing suggest potential inequities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HSG enrolment was associated with greater uptake of selected preventive services. As an observational study restricted to regular primary care users, findings may not be generalisable to less-engaged populations. Continued evaluation is needed to assess long-term impact and equity of preventive care uptake.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149137843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'We don't need to check it, but we do check it': a qualitative study of the views of primary care healthcare professionals on blood test monitoring in three long-term conditions.","authors":"Rachel O'Donnell, Alice Malpass, Clare Thomas, Martha Elwenspoek, Jessica Watson, Penny Whiting, Tracey Stone","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0075","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In the UK there is variation in which tests are used for monitoring Long Term Conditions (LTCs). Guidance that underpins testing practices for LTCs is often based on expert opinion rather than evidence. There is little insight into the views of primary care staff as to why such variation exists or on whether current LTC blood test monitoring is optimal.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To understand the views of Healthcare Professionals on blood test monitoring for three LTCs (type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic kidney disease), identify factors that shape monitoring practices for LTCs and inform the development and implementation of an optimised testing intervention for primary care.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Qualitative, in depth, semi-structured interviews with HCPs engaged in monitoring blood tests for LTCs in primary care in the West of England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twenty-one HCPs were recruited from four GP practices. Practices represented a range of social deprivation scores, patient list size and demographics. Qualitative interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a reflexive thematic approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified variation in views and testing behaviours in blood test monitoring across HCPs and practices. HCPs reported that many of the drivers of testing variation in their experience were systemic, including barriers from IT systems, funding structures and inconsistent testing guidelines. Other drivers included socio-behavioural factors such as patient behaviours and HCP experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a recognition in primary care that testing for LTCs could be optimised but a lack of consensus on how to approach this. Practices employ different and various approaches to testing. This has important implications for effective implementation of interventions to optimise testing practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149115917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Optimal medical management in primary care for individuals with chronic breathlessness (OptiMed): evidence synthesis using national guidelines and qualitative methods.","authors":"Gillian Doe, Simon Wathall, Kumaran Balasundaram, Lindsey Berends, Cheryl Chapman, Ben Bowers, Pip Divall, Jonathan Mant, Anna Spathis, Rachael A Evans","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0208","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0208","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic breathlessness poses a significant burden for individuals and healthcare systems. Effective symptom-directed approaches, such as breathing and relaxation techniques, require medical optimisation of the underlying long-term condition causing breathlessness. We previously identified nine, predominantly cardiorespiratory, long-term conditions contributing to the greatest burden of breathlessness in primary care.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Develop checklists to support primary care in delivering optimal, evidence-based management of conditions causing chronic breathlessness.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Synthesis of national guidance and stakeholder workshops, using a co-design approach.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Desktop review of national guidance relating to the management of each condition was synthesised as the basis for the checklists. Virtual workshops and interviews were conducted to further adapt the checklist content with stakeholders (primary care staff, clinical specialists, and representatives from national speciality groups). Workshops were recorded and facilitated by a qualitative researcher with clinical experience. Insights from workshop data were incorporated to produce draft checklists for verification by workshop participants. Checklist contents were refined and agreed in consultation with national specialist groups. Electronic patient record templates were developed to operationalise the checklists.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two national guidelines were reviewed and synthesised into the checklist drafts. Six virtual workshops and nine individual interviews were conducted with 30 key stakeholders (five GPs, four nurses, six physiotherapists, three pharmacists, three dietitians, and nine physicians). Participants directed the checklist format to include safety netting, key diagnostic checks, and optimal management.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Short, pragmatic, evidence-based checklists were developed for use in primary care to support primary care clinicians in managing the main conditions contributing to chronic breathlessness.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147468600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nurses delivering person-centred multiple long-term condition reviews in primary care: a secondary analysis of qualitative data.","authors":"Kate Lippiett, Andrew Turner, Caroline Coope, Cindy Mann, Alice Moult, Dereth Baker, Simon Chilcott, Clare Jinks, Krysia Dziedzic, Andrew Finney, Chris Salisbury, Rachel Johnson, Maria Carmen Portillo-Vega","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0184","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0184","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>General practice nurses in England often manage long-term conditions (LTCs), with more people now living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC). Evidence on the effectiveness and delivery of person-centred care for MLTCs is limited, and the nurse's role - including necessary training - remains underexplored.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To identify and characterise general practice nurses' experiences of undertaking person-centred MLTC reviews in England.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Secondary analysis of qualitative data gathered from general practice staff in England.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two-part review consultations for people with three or more LTCs (rather than separate single-condition reviews as per usual care) in 16 English general practices, part of a larger implementation project (PP4M). Empirical qualitative data (healthcare staff interviews and researcher fieldnotes) and theoretical approaches (chronic care model, normalisation process theory) were analysed abductively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two overarching themes were identified: healthcare professionals' understanding of MLTC reviews' purpose and the challenges and opportunities for nurses delivering MLTC reviews. Some nurses utilised reviews as data-gathering exercises, facilitating collection of nationally set, quality-driven financial incentives linked to single conditions. Other nurses used reviews as opportunities for meaningful discussion of complex problems, leading to action. MLTC reviews allowed nurses a new way of thinking; some found this empowering, whereas others found it challenging.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>General practice nurses are central to MLTC care. They value organisational support for training in person-centred MLTC management, but it remains unclear how best to achieve necessary training. Further research is needed on skills and training required for all healthcare professionals caring for people with MLTC.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147317601","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'I was lucky!' Exploring how practice placements affect F2 doctors' attitudes to a GP career: a mixed-methods study.","authors":"Natasha Doran, Gordon Taylor, Michael Harris","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0237","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0237","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The NHS has a workload that is increasingly moving from secondary to primary care. The proportion of foundation year 2 (F2) doctor specialty training applicants appointed to GP training programmes has historically been in decline. Though recent figures show an increase in applications, the pattern of high competition and many F2s not progressing directly into GP training is ongoing.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the features of F2 GP placements that influence career choice.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>A retrospective mixed-methods study using an online survey followed by semi-structured interviews.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A survey of 77 F2 doctors from three Health Education England regions was completed, of which 20 took part in interviews following their 4-month GP placement. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study found considerable variation between practice placements in terms of F2s' workload, the quality of supervision and support, whether they encountered inspiring GP role models, the degree of isolation, educational opportunities, and the culture of the practice. F2 doctors consider that their GP placements are invaluable for their learning; however, placement experiences were mixed, with F2 doctors being attracted to and 'put off' a GP career in equal numbers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a need to ensure consistently high quality GP placement experiences for F2 doctors that can best inform their career choice. F2 doctors made several recommendations following their GP placement, which, if implemented, may help to increase the attractiveness of general practice as a career.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147356805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of an audit and feedback intervention to improve uptake of cervical screening.","authors":"Erica di Martino, Tasneem Khan, Stephen H Bradley, Tom Daniels, Robbie Foy, Sarah Alderson, Richard D Neal, Thomas A Willis","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0218","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0218","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical screening programmes are long-established and supported by robust evidence, but participation is declining. Around a third of those eligible did not participate in England in 2023-2024.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an audit and feedback intervention to improve the uptake of cervical screening in general practice.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Semi-structured interview study with general practice staff in three primary care networks (PCNs) and regional and national policy leaders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Quarterly reports were generated for 23 general practices comparing cervical screening coverage with other local practices with similar population levels of deprivation, alongside resources and practical suggestions to improve screening uptake. Reports were emailed to practice managers who were asked to share them with their teams. The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with practice staff and health service leaders to determine how the reports were received, understood, and used. Interviews were structured and analysed using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen practice staff and three service leaders were interviewed. Practice teams seldom recalled seeing the feedback reports before interview invitations but generally viewed them positively when shown at interview. Report format, length, frequency, and content were considered appropriate. Staff involved in cervical screening found the reports clear and informative, and thought that enhanced awareness and motivation could prompt positive actions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Audit and feedback cannot improve cervical cancer screening uptake if targeted recipients do not receive it. More effective methods are required to engage or circumvent practice 'gatekeepers' to ensure feedback reaches those it is intended for.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147317555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recruitment and participation of general practices in research networks: quantitative evaluation of the first joint study in six German practice-based research networks.","authors":"Michael Pentzek, Susanne Löscher, Karen Voigt, Steve Piller, Susanne Döpfmer, Christian Kretzschmann, Karola Mergenthal, Andreas Polanc, Ann-Kathrin Lepper, Elena D Hohmann","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2026.0113","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recruiting general practices for research is challenging. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) may improve participation, but little is known about how newly established PBRNs function operationally in multicentre studies.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate recruitment effort, participation, data completeness, and acceptability in the first joint study of six German PBRNs.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Multicentre cross-sectional feasibility study across 18 university sites in six German PBRNs.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>GPs completed an online REDCap survey covering practice characteristics, aggregated patient numbers manually extracted from practice management systems (PMS), and attitudes towards post-COVID/post-vaccination-related symptoms. Sites documented contacts, reminders, and time investment. A two-step cluster analysis characterised site-level recruitment strategies, and a generalised linear mixed model examined predictors of data completeness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 906 contacted GPs, 156 participated (17.2%); 69 (7.6%) provided near-complete datasets (≥90% item response). Recruitment required 134 staff-hours overall, equivalent to about 2 hours and 13 contacted GPs per near-complete dataset, and varied substantially between sites. Two recruitment clusters emerged: an email-oriented, low-effort strategy that recruited more practices overall, and a phone-intensive, high-effort strategy that achieved higher response rates but lower acceptability. Data completeness was lowest for PMS-derived patient data. Completeness varied by site, but not by PBRN or recruitment cluster, and was higher among younger and female GPs, in multi-doctor practices, and among those with prior research experience.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this first joint German PBRN project, participation and data completeness were limited despite network affiliation. Site-level capability, practice research experience, and easier extraction of routine data appear crucial for future PBRN studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149115964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Out-of-hours general practice consultations and emergency department referrals from 2013-2022 in the Republic of Ireland: a retrospective observational study.","authors":"Michael Edmund O'Callaghan, William Giguere, Fintan Stanley","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0204","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0204","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>GP out-of-hours (OOH) cooperatives provide urgent primary care across the Republic of Ireland (RoI), but national workload trends and hospital referral patterns are poorly described.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To quantify OOH activity (2013-2022), examine for changes in OOH service utilisation over time, and describe emergency department (ED) referral rates.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Retrospective observational study using aggregated electronic medical record (EMR) data from eight large GP OOH cooperatives across the RoI from 2013-2022.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Annual measures included total consultations and consultation type (triage nurse versus GP consultation, teleconsultation, treatment-centre visit, home visit). Subsets provided age mix and ED referral data. Descriptive analyses were contextualised with nationally available open data and prior literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across 2013-2022, participating OOH services recorded approximately 900 000 consultations annually, with an overall 26% rise in consultations over the 10-year period. Two major inflection points were observed: the introduction of free GP care for children aged <6 years (2015) was followed by a 17% rise in consultations (2014-2016), whereas COVID-19 coincided with an 18% fall in consultation volume and fewer face-to-face visits (2020-2022). ED referral rates remained broadly stable at 13% throughout.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OOH GP cooperatives provide substantial, adaptive capacity, managing the vast majority of patients within primary care. This study supports the view that OOH cooperatives act as a buffer for EDs and a pressure-release valve for daytime general practice. Routinely collected EMR data can track OOH activity over time and should inform workforce and service planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147349026","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Violence and abuse towards staff by patients and the public in general practice since COVID-19: findings from an online survey.","authors":"Shihning Chou, Edward Tyrrell, Ira Makhijani, Paul Leighton, Emma Rowe, Julie Bryant, Denise Kendrick","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0124","DOIUrl":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0124","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Professionals in general practice (family medicine) experience more violence and abuse by patients and the public than in other healthcare settings. There is limited research on such experiences among non-clinical staff, and no direct comparisons between staff groups in general practice.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To explore the following: the extent of violence and abuse from patients or the public towards general practice staff between 2020 and 2023; staff correlates and environmental correlates for violence and abuse; and potential impacts of violence and abuse regarding staff feeling of safety and support at work.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>An online survey of general practice staff was conducted across England between 11 July 2023 and 30 November 2023.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The survey questions covered demographics, physical violence and threats, verbal abuse, harassment, and inappropriate sexual behaviours experienced or witnessed between 2020 and 2023. It asked whether participants felt safe and supported at work. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare binary outcomes and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for categorical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (<i>n</i> = 1152, 44.0% clinical, 56.0% non-clinical) were aged 21-75 years (mean = 47.3 years, standard deviation [SD] = 11.1). Overall, 93.7% reported experiencing any form of violence or abuse, with 92.3% reporting verbal abuse, 47.7% reporting physical violence or threats, 60.5% reporting feeling harassed, and 23.7% reporting inappropriate sexual behaviours. Additionally, 22.3% of staff felt unsafe but only 57.1% felt supported at work. Non-clinical, younger, or less experienced staff and those in urban and deprived areas experience more violence and abuse. Those experiencing it more frequently felt less safe and supported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Violence and abuse from patients and the public towards general practice staff may be prevalent and increased since the COVID-19 pandemic. Those at greater risk require more organisational support.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145946366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"<b>Correction:</b> Violence and abuse towards staff by patients and the public in general practice since COVID-19: findings from an online survey.","authors":"","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.9997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2025.9997","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149115976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}