Signposting for general practitioners
BMJ 1998; 317 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7154.0 (Published 01 August 1998) Cite this as: BMJ 1998;317:0
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
My first reaction on seeing the 'signposts' in the 'new look GP BMJ' was one of intense irritation. I felt that the BMJ was being patronising to GPs.
I raised the issue with four other GPs and the following issues were raised:
a) I was the only GP who received the 'General Practice' edition of the BMJ and so none of my colleagues had seen the 'signposts'. This raises the question as to how many GPs actually receive the GP edition, how many receive the hospital edition and how this allocation is decided.
b) The response rate of 16% makes it impossible to draw any conclusions.
c) The percentages of responses do not add up (144%). The presumed explanation for this is that respondents were allowed to give more than one response - if so, this should be stated.
d) Why not 'signpost' the hospital edition with codes for each hospital speciality? The end result may look like a hotel guide but surely specialists, with a much narrower range of interests, are likely to want their field of interest highlighted so that they can ignore 'irrelevant' articles. GPs, being generalists, are likely to find more articles of interest per issue.
e) It should be transparent who is deciding which articles should be signposted and the process of selection described. It seeems odd, for example, that the book review entitled 'General Practice under the NHS' is not signposted.
Following this discussion I am a little less irritated but still regard the approach as patronising: a signpost to lose GPs, surely?
Competing interests: No competing interests
Surely one of the great strengths of the BMJ is its broad content and the wide range of topics that it covers. This could of course also apply to General Practice itself. My main concerns would be who decides what is marked as being relevent to General Practice and what criteria are used?
To turn the question around what: is not relevent to General Practice?
Competing interests: No competing interests
I think the highlighting idea is a great one. So some find it patronising. Well just ignore it; the more help we can get to find the information that is pertinent the better. Continue your experiements. A journal that stands still is a journal that will fade and die. I always feel that the best magazines that I read vary widely from week to week, because they are trying something different. When they make a mess they know it and they get feedback. A magazine or journal without feedback, positive or negative, won't improve. Continue the good work.
Competing interests: No competing interests
What do mean read?
In my 20 years of medical experience, I have been impressed by one thing. Doctors/physicians do not read enough. I personally like the idea of sign posting. I review 20 journals every month on the net. Having a sign post to guide me is appealing. Why limit it to GP? Should you not give wide birth to the project and provide posting for all generalists, specialists and subspecialists. If one wants to read the journal cover to cover, by all means... However, my schedule is tight and any help or facilitation in the direction of efficiency is greatly appreciated. For those generalist, who feel they are or might be being slighted, I say put your egos away. None of us read enough...
Wilkie
Competing interests: No competing interests