Cited by 515Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health OutcomesHealthcare Systems and Technology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 23 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries

Open access
Deveugele, Myriam, Derese, Anselm, van den Brink-Muinen, Atie, Bensing, Jozien, De Maeseneer, Jan·2002·BMJ

Abstract

Objectives : To compare determinants of consultation length discussed in the literature with those found in consultations with general practitioners from different European countries; to explore the determinants of consultation length, particularly the effect of doctors' and patients' perceptions of psychosocial aspects. Design : Analysis of videotaped consultations of general practitioners from the Eurocommunication study and of questionnaires completed by doctors and by patients. Setting : General practices in six European countries. Participants : 190 general practitioners and 3674 patients. Results : In a multilevel analysis with three levels (country, general practitioner, and patient), country and doctor variables contributed a similar amount to the total variance in consultation length (23% and 22%, respectively) and patient variables accounted for 55% of the variance. The variables used in the multilevel analysis explained 25% of the total variation. The country in which the doctor practised, combined with the doctors' variables, was as important for the variance in consultation length as the variation between patients. Consultations in which psychosocial problems were considered important by the doctor and the patient lasted longer than consultations about biomedical problems only. The doctor's perception had more influence in this situation than the patient's. Consultation length is influenced by the patients' sex (women got longer consultations), whether the practice was urban or rural, the number of new problems discussed in the consultation (the more problems the longer the consultation), and the patient's age (the older the patient the longer the consultation). As a doctor's workload increased, the length of consultations decreased. The general practitioner's sex or age and patient's level of education were not related to the length of consultation. Conclusion : Consultation length is determined by variables related to the doctor and the doctor's country as well as by those related to patients. Women consulting in an urban practice with problems perceived as psychosocial have longer consultations than other patients.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Consultation length in six European countries varied substantially and was shaped by country, doctor, and patient factors, with patient-level variables accounting for 55% of total variance and country and doctor variables about 22–23% each. Consultations were longest for women in urban practices when psychosocial problems were perceived as important, especially by the doctor.

Key findings

  • Mean consultation length overall was 10.7 (SD 6.7) minutes. Belgium (15.0 min) and Switzerland (15.6 min) had the longest consultations; Germany (7.6 min) and Spain (7.8 min) had the shortest; the Netherlands (10.2 min) and United Kingdom (9.4 min) were intermediate.
  • In multilevel analysis, total variance in consultation length was 44.2, split into 24.4 (55%) at patient level, 9.8 (22%) at doctor level, and 10.0 (23%) at country level; the variables used explained 25% of total variation (R²=0.252).
  • Consultations were longer in city practices by 1.5 minutes, for women patients by about 1 minute, for at least one new problem by 51 seconds, when the doctor perceived psychosocial problems as important by 50 seconds, when the patient perceived psychosocial aspects as important by 30 seconds, and when the GP diagnosed a psychosocial problem by 0.95 minutes.
  • Consultation time increased by about 1 second per year of patient age and decreased by 0.6 seconds per additional weekly workload unit; GP sex or age, patient education, and prescribing behaviour were not significantly related to consultation length.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional analysis of videotaped general practice consultations from the Eurocommunication study in six European countries, with questionnaires completed by doctors and patients.
  • Participants were 190 general practitioners and 3674 patients; 20 consultations were videotaped per doctor and 15 per doctor were analysed. Consultation length was measured with a stopwatch, subtracting interruptions.
  • Multilevel regression analysis with three levels (country, general practitioner, patient) using MLwiN 1.1; principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was used on patient questionnaire items, and SPSS 9.0 was used for data analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the general practitioner groups were not representative: they had lower workloads than doctors in the task profile study, more urban practices were included, and more women doctors took part.
  • The paper states that all doctors agreed to have consultations videotaped, so they may have been more interested in communication and more experienced with research/training than average doctors, potentially biasing findings.
  • The paper notes that only six countries were included, so country-level variation is subject to a large standard error; the text also makes evident that 976 of 4650 patients (21%) refused participation, with more women refusing and some problem types refusing more often, though age and education were similar between participants and refusers.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7362.472

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

25 Own result · 12 Own interpretation · 8 No full text of the sources · 6 Own method · 3 Sources not found · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 28 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 11
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
30 of 30
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    General practitioners in Belgium and Switzerland are paid mostly by direct payment from the patient at the end of the consultation.

    “Moreover, general practitioners in Belgium and Switzerland are paid mostly by direct payment from the patient at the end of the consultation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The United Kingdom and the Netherlands have well organised primary healthcare systems, with restricted patient lists and gatekeeping.

    “The United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which had intermediate consultation times, have well organised primary healthcare systems, with restricted patient lists and gatekeeping.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    General practitioners in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are predominantly paid by capitation.

    “General practitioners in these countries are predominantly paid by capitation (the government supplies a fee per patient).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In urban practices, patients presented more problems within one consultation.

    “In urban practices, patients presented more problems within one consultation.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Murray, 1978, Consulting time and prescribing rates., Update, 16, 969

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Deveugele, M., Derese, A., van den Brink-Muinen, A., Bensing, J., & De Maeseneer, J.
Affiliations
Ghent University (BE)
Corresponding author
Deveugele, Myriam
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-08-31
Volume
325
Issue
7362
Pages
472.1
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2124095734
Cited by
515
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 27
FWCI
27.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
consultation time, general practice, general practitioners, patient sex, psychosocial problems, physician workload, patient age, patient education level, cross-national comparison, doctor-patient interaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Appointments and Schedules, Cross-Sectional Studies, Europe, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Office Visits, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional Practice, Surveys and Questionnaires, Rural Health, Time and Motion Studies, Urban Health, Patient Satisfaction

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-14, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-14 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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