The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports
Open accessAbstract
Objective : To review findings from studies of the influence of desktop computers on primary care consultations. Design : Systematic review of world reports from 1984 to 1994. Setting : The computerised catalogues of Medline, BIDS, and GPlit were searched, as well as conference proceedings, books, bibliographies, and references in books and journal articles. Subjects : 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included for detailed review. Interventions : A validated scheme for assessing methodological adequacy was used to score each paper. Main outcome measures : Papers were rated on sample formation, baseline differences, unit of allocation, outcome measures, and follow up. Differences in outcomes were also recorded. Results : Four of the six papers dealing with the consultation process showed that consultations took longer. Doctor initiated and “medical” content of consultations increased at the expense of a reduction in patient initiated and “social” content. Each of the 21 studies which looked at clinician performance showed an improvement when a computer was used (from 8% to 50%, with better results for single preventive measures). Only one of the three studies looking at patient outcomes showed an improvement (diastolic blood pressure control 5 mm Hg better after one year, with fewer doctor-patient consultations). Conclusions : Using a computer in the consultation may help improve clinician performance but may increase the length of the consultation. More studies are needed to assess the effects on patient outcomes of using a computer in consultations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Tierney, W. M., Hui, S. L., & McDonald, C. J. (1986) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198608000-00001 · Cited by 337
Cited by
From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care
Grol, R., & Grimshaw, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14546-1 · Cited by 4,531
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
(2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,709
Poissant, L. (2005) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1700 · Cited by 901
Costs and benefits of health information technology.
Shekelle, P. G., Morton, S. C., & Keeler, E. B. (2006) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcerta132 · Cited by 501
Metadata
- Authors
- Sullivan, F., & Mitchell, E.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1995-09-30
- Volume
- 311
- Issue
- 7009
- Pages
- 848-852
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2006286336
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.311.7009.848
- The paper
- Sullivan, F., & Mitchell, E. (1995). Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7009.848
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.