Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The British Journal of General Practice logoLink to The British Journal of General Practice
. 2001 Sep;51(470):749–752.

A healthy disposition? The use and limitations of the characteristics approach to general practice research.

D L Baines 1
PMCID: PMC1314105  PMID: 11593838

Abstract

A range of easily identifiable characteristics is often used by researchers and general practitioners to categorise primary care practices. In the United Kingdom, for example, practices can be defined as dispensing, single-handed or training. The availability of routinely collected data has led to a growing research literature that links practice characteristics to their workload, performance and costs. This paper examines the use and limitations of this 'characteristics approach' and argues that this type of research is often undertaken because it is easy to perform rather than because it is the most appropriate way to study primary care. Using this approach may lead to failure to do the following: to account for the environmental factors that determine the effects particular characteristics manifest; to identify the true relationships between the observed characteristics; to control for changes in the effects of characteristics over time; to differentiate between the behaviour of individual members of a group with the same characteristic and that of the group as a whole; to assign the correct causality to relationships between practice characteristics, workloads, performance, and costs. The characteristics approach should be used with great caution by general practice researchers.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (55.1 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Baines D. L., Tolley K. H., Whynes D. K. The costs of prescribing in dispensing practices. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1996 Oct;21(5):343–348. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2710.1996.tb00029.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baines D. L., Whynes D. K. Selection bias in GP fundholding. Health Econ. 1996 Mar-Apr;5(2):129–140. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<129::AID-HEC190>3.0.CO;2-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker R. Comparison of standards in training and non-training practices. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1985 Jul;35(276):330–332. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker R., Thompson J. Innovation in general practice: is the gap between training and non-training practices getting wider? Br J Gen Pract. 1995 Jun;45(395):297–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradlow J., Coulter A. Effect of fundholding and indicative prescribing schemes on general practitioners' prescribing costs. BMJ. 1993 Nov 6;307(6913):1186–1189. doi: 10.1136/bmj.307.6913.1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gill P. S., Dowell A., Harris C. M. Effect of doctors' ethnicity and country of qualification on prescribing patterns in single handed general practices: linkage of information collected by questionnaire and from routine data. BMJ. 1997 Dec 13;315(7122):1590–1594. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7122.1590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Gosden T., Torgerson D. J. The effect of fundholding on prescribing and referral costs: a review of the evidence. Health Policy. 1997 May;40(2):103–114. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(96)00888-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Harris C. M., Scrivener G. Fundholders' prescribing costs: the first five years. BMJ. 1996 Dec 14;313(7071):1531–1534. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7071.1531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Martin-Bates C., Agass M., Tulloch A. J. General practice workload during normal working hours in training and non-training practices. Br J Gen Pract. 1993 Oct;43(375):413–416. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Morton-Jones T. J., Pringle M. A. Prescribing costs in dispensing practices. BMJ. 1993 May 8;306(6887):1244–1246. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6887.1244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Newton J., Fraser M., Robinson J., Wainwright D. Fundholding in northern region: the first year. BMJ. 1993 Feb 6;306(6874):375–378. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6874.375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Smith R. D., Wilton P. General practice fundholding: progress to date. Br J Gen Pract. 1998 May;48(430):1253–1257. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Stewart-Brown S., Surender R., Bradlow J., Coulter A., Doll H. The effects of fundholding in general practice on prescribing habits three years after introduction of the scheme. BMJ. 1995 Dec 9;311(7019):1543–1547. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7019.1543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Taylor M. B. Single-handed GPs. Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Oct;47(423):659–659. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wilson R. P., Hatcher J., Barton S., Walley T. Influences of practice characteristics on prescribing in fundholding and non-fundholding general practices: an observational study. BMJ. 1996 Sep 7;313(7057):595–599. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7057.595. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The British Journal of General Practice are provided here courtesy of Royal College of General Practitioners

RESOURCES