A new GP with special interest headache service: observational study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is poor access to neurology services for patients in the community. AIM: To describe the training of GPs with special interest (GPwSI) in headache and the setting up of a GPwSI clinic in general practice, and report on a comparison with the existing neurology service in terms of case severity, patient satisfaction, and cost. DESIGN OF STUDY: New service provision and evaluation by a questionnaire survey. SETTING: General practice and hospital neurology service in inner-city London. METHOD: The intervention involved training GPs as GPwSIs and setting up a GP headache service. A questionnaire survey was conducted, measuring headache impact, satisfaction, and cost estimates. RESULTS: Headache impact was not significantly different between the two groups of patients, referred to hospital and to a GPwSI. Patients were significantly more satisfied with the GPwSI service, particularly that the service was effective in helping to relieve their symptoms (89% versus 76%; adjusted odds ratio=7.7; 95% confidence interval=2.7 to 22.4). The cost per first appointment was estimated to be pound sterling 136, with pound sterling 68 for subsequent contacts. These are lower than costs for neurologist contacts. CONCLUSION: GPwSI services can satisfy the needs of patients with similar headache impact at costs that are lower than those for secondary care services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it