Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 192

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 access
Sullivan, Frank, Mitchell, Elizabeth·1995·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.311.7009.848

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 192

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.