Evidence Hub

A cohort study of influences, health outcomes and costs of patients’ health-seeking behaviour for minor ailments from primary and emergency care settings

M. Watson, J. Ferguson, G. Barton, V. Maskrey, A. Blyth, Vibhu Paudyal, C. Bond, R. Holland et al.

BMJ Open, 2015

377 participants · 130 citations

Abstract

Objectives To compare health-related and cost-related outcomes of consultations for symptoms suggestive of minor ailments in emergency departments (EDs), general practices and community pharmacies. Design Observational study; prospective cohort design. Setting EDs (n=2), general practices (n=6) and community pharmacies (n=10) in a mix of rural/urban and deprived/affluent areas across North East Scotland and East Anglia. Participants Adults (≥18 years) presenting between 09:00 and 18:00 (Monday–Friday) in general practices and 09:00–18:00 (Monday–Saturday) in pharmacies and EDs with ≥1 of the following: musculoskeletal pain; eye discomfort; gastrointestinal disturbance; or upper respiratory tract-related symptoms. Interventions Participants completed three questionnaires: baseline (prior to index consultation); satisfaction with index consultation and follow-up (2 weeks after index consultation). Main outcome measures Symptom resolution, quality of life, costs, satisfaction and influences on care-seeking behaviour. Results 377 patients participated, recruited from EDs (81), general practices (162) and community pharmacies (134). The 2-week response rate was 70% (264/377). Symptom resolution was similar across all three settings: ED (37.3%), general practice (35.7%) and pharmacy (44.3%). Mean overall costs per consultation were significantly lower for pharmacy (£29.30 (95% CI £21.60 to £37.00)) compared with general practice (£82.34 (95% CI £63.10 to £101.58)) and ED (£147.09…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 377 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free