Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open
  • RCGP
    • British Journal of General Practice
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow BJGP Open on Instagram
  • Visit bjgp open on Bluesky
  • Blog
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
BJGP Open

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP Open
    • BJGP Open Accessibility Statement
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Fellowships
    • Audio Abstracts
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • BJGP Life
    • Research into Publication Science
    • Advertising
    • Contact
  • SPECIAL ISSUES
    • Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care: call for articles
    • Social Care Integration with Primary Care: call for articles
    • Special issue: Telehealth
    • Special issue: Race and Racism in Primary Care
    • Special issue: COVID-19 and Primary Care
    • Past research calls
    • Top 10 Research Articles of the Year
  • BJGP CONFERENCE →
Practice & Policy

The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2023: an editorial

Alexander Burrell and Hajira Dambha-Miller
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (1): BJGPO.2024.0042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0042
Alexander Burrell
1 BJGP Open, Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexander Burrell
  • For correspondence: alex.burrell@bristol.ac.uk
Hajira Dambha-Miller
1 BJGP Open, Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hajira Dambha-Miller
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
  • editorial
  • primary healthcare
  • general practitioners

At BJGP Open, we are proud to be a journal for international primary care, early career researchers, and front-line clinicians. In 2023, we accepted more articles than ever before and exceeded our previous monthly submission numbers towards the end of the year. We published works from 17 different countries (based on lead authors), and their submissions represented a diverse range of clinically and socially relevant primary care topics. This included manuscripts examining the driving forces behind GP migration in Europe; the impact of GP training opportunities on health inequities; and the challenges faced by international medical graduates in primary care. In this editorial, we explore those works which have made it onto our list of Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2023.

Remote consulting and telehealth remain high on the research agenda. The COVID years ushered in a new era of remote consultations and, while we continue to see submissions on this topic, authors are now looking to the future, examining the sustainability and impact of this approach. Ashley et al 1 thoroughly explored this in Australia through their qualitative study interviewing a range of clinicians, including GPs, nurses, nurse practitioners, and allied health professionals. The authors report that remote consultations are sustainable going forwards, but standards, training, and hybrid models need development. Concerns around the safety and effectiveness of remote consulting were explored by Lane et al 2 in their analysis of 281 in-person consultations on diabetes and cardiovascular disease: 60% of clinical tasks were ‘easily or relatively easily’ translatable to telehealth, with a further 26% ‘moderately translatable’ if patients acquire their own equipment, such as blood pressure machines. Can we expect all patients to accept this, and what happens to the most vulnerable? Verity and Tzortziou Brown’s3 article addresses this question by exploring the perspective of individuals from inclusion health groups on remote consulting. Potential barriers highlighted include issues around digital exclusion, availability of language translation services, and challenges navigating an already complex healthcare system. The economic impact of remote consulting also received consideration through Anthony et al’s4 feasibility economic analysis of ‘ThinkCancer!’, a complex behaviour change intervention to improve the timely diagnosis of cancer. The study reports successful remote delivery of the intervention and follow-up at an average cost of £1317 per practice. Sufficient data were collected to inform future definitive economic evaluation, reminding us how both clinical and academic communities were able to respond in challenging times.

For research to be translated into GP practices, understanding clinicians’ experiences is key. Mizumoto et al 5 explored GP perceptions of being asked to address social determinants of health in clinical settings: while participants were aware that addressing these issues would enhance their practice, being mandated to ask set questions was not useful in a busy and often isolated primary care setting. Guidelines are just that, and are used or adapted by clinicians based on their real-world experience. Jones et al’s6 systematic review of challenges faced by GPs when providing palliative care in the UK found a number of barriers: a fragmented multidisciplinary team approach, challenging communication with patients and carers, and inadequate training to address the complexities of palliative care. Through understanding the reality of delivering clinical care, we can identify areas to focus our academic and quality improvement efforts. Donaghy et al 7 evaluated the ‘Living Well Assessment’ quality improvement project, a GP-led comprehensive geriatric assessment in primary care conducted in ten practices during the pandemic. This was found to be feasible and highly valued by both frail patients and GPs, though the authors note further investigation is required regarding efficient use of GPs' time, and clinical and cost effectiveness: we look forward to reading these studies.

Once clinical practice is established, it is important to remain reflexive and to examine why we do what we do. Borek et al 8 qualitatively explored clinician and patient views on hypothetical advice to stop antibiotics when feeling better rather than completing a pre-set course for urinary tract infections. Clinicians were more open to this than patients, but both groups felt good evidence and guidelines were needed and these decisions should be shared. Jones et al 9 investigated variation in laboratory testing for patients with hypertension, type two diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. They found considerable variation by practice, indicating uncertainty over most appropriate testing frequencies. Time is a valuable commodity in primary care, and both over- and under-testing can affect how much of it we have. Dahle et al 10 may have found a way to save a minute or two: the single question Emoqol-100 seems to have high validity in diagnosing depression when compared to longer multi-item tools.

In our 2022 editorial,11 we were looking forward to submissions building the evidence base on remote consulting: our top articles from 2023 have started to do this and have also provided valuable insights into the realities of clinical care from a range of perspectives and environments globally. Evaluating practice that has been doctrine, such as antibiotic course length or chronic disease monitoring frequency, can highlight areas for improvement. As a journal, we are looking forward to receiving submissions on these and other important topics as we continue to work with our authors to improve and develop the international primary care evidence base.

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this article.

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

AB is an Editorial Board Member at BJGP Open. HDM is the Editor-in-Chief of BJGP Open.

  • Received February 8, 2024.
  • Revision received February 8, 2024.
  • Accepted February 8, 2024.
  • Copyright © 2024, The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ashley C,
    2. Williams A,
    3. Dennis S,
    4. McInnes S,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Telehealth‘s future in Australian primary health care: a qualitative study exploring lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. BJGP Open 7 (2), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0117, pmid:36750374. BJGPO.2022.0117.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Lane J,
    2. David K,
    3. Ramarao J,
    4. Ward K,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Translating primary care to telehealth: analysis of in-person consultations on diabetes and cardiovascular disease. BJGP Open 7 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0123, pmid:36450404. BJGPO.2022.0123.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Verity A,
    2. Tzortziou Brown V
    (2023) Inclusion health patient perspectives on remote access to general practice: a qualitative study. BJGP Open 7 (2), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0023, pmid:36813294. BJGPO.2023.0023.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Anthony BF,
    2. Disbeschl S,
    3. Goulden N,
    4. Hendry A,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Earlier cancer diagnosis in primary care: a feasibility economic analysis of ThinkCancer! BJGP Open 7 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0130, pmid:36543386. BJGPO.2022.0130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Mizumoto J,
    2. Mitsuyama T,
    3. Eto M,
    4. Izumiya M,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Primary care physicians’ perceptions of social determinants of health recommendations: a qualitative study. BJGP Open 7 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0129, pmid:36693758. BJGPO.2022.0129.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Jones R,
    2. Dale J,
    3. MacArtney J
    (2023) Challenges experienced by GPs when providing palliative care in the UK: a systematic qualitative literature review. BJGP Open 7 (2), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0159, pmid:36849167. BJGPO.2022.0159.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Donaghy E,
    2. Still F,
    3. Frost H,
    4. Lutte J,
    5. et al.
    (2023) GP-led adapted comprehensive geriatric assessment for frail older people: a multi-methods evaluation of the ‘Living Well Assessment’ quality improvement project in Scotland. BJGP Open 7 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0184, pmid:36564081. BJGPO.2022.0184.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Borek AJ,
    2. Edwards G,
    3. Santillo M,
    4. Wanat M,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Re-examining advice to complete antibiotic courses: a qualitative study with clinicians and patients. BJGP Open 7 (2), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0170, pmid:36720563. BJGPO.2022.0170.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jones T,
    2. Patel R,
    3. Elwenspoek MMC,
    4. Watson JC,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Variation in laboratory testing for patients with long-term conditions: a longitudinal cohort study in UK primary care. BJGP Open 7 (1), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0139, pmid:36693759. BJGPO.2022.0139.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Dahle NE,
    2. Matthew C,
    3. Roskvist RP,
    4. Moir F,
    5. et al.
    (2023) Emoqol-100: development and validation of a single question for low mood in primary care. A retrospective audit. BJGP Open 7 (3), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0011, pmid:37160336. BJGPO.2023.0011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Burrell A,
    2. Dambha-Miller H
    (2023) The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2022: an editorial. BJGP Open 7 (2), doi:10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0026, pmid:36859356. BJGPO.2023.0026.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 8, Issue 1
April 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending BJGP Open.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2023: an editorial
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from BJGP Open
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from BJGP Open.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2023: an editorial
Alexander Burrell, Hajira Dambha-Miller
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (1): BJGPO.2024.0042. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0042

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2023: an editorial
Alexander Burrell, Hajira Dambha-Miller
BJGP Open 2024; 8 (1): BJGPO.2024.0042. DOI: 10.3399/BJGPO.2024.0042
del.icio.us logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Notes
    • References
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • editorial
  • primary healthcare
  • general practitioners

More in this TOC Section

  • The BJGP Open Top 10 Most Read Research Articles of 2024: an editorial
  • The overlooked challenges facing out-of-hours primary care in the NHS: a missed opportunity in policy
  • Potentially inappropriate prescribing in middle-aged adults: a significant problem with a lack of action and evidence to address it
Show more Practice & Policy

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Latest articles
  • Authors & reviewers
  • Accessibility statement

RCGP

  • British Journal of General Practice
  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP Open
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP Open: research
  • Writing for BJGP Open: practice & policy
  • BJGP Open editorial process & policies
  • BJGP Open ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP Open

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Open access licence

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Open Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: bjgpopen@rcgp.org.uk

BJGP Open is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners

© 2025 BJGP Open

Online ISSN: 2398-3795