PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 2283933

Laboratory testing in, or for, general practice.

P M Broughton·G H Thorpe
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent technological advances make it possible for general practitioners to do many laboratory tests in the doctor's office. This has advantages and limitations, and a new balance must be found between testing within and outside laboratories. General practitioners will need to decide which tests to do within the practice, and laboratory staff have opportunities to become more involved in the needs and problems of general practice, so that they are able to advise on when and how tests are best performed.

Explore related subjects

EnglandFamily PracticeHumansLaboratoriesPathology, ClinicalWorkforceJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P M Broughton, G H Thorpe. 1990. Laboratory testing in, or for, general practice.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2283933/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Health inequalities in Scotland and England: the contrasting journeys of ideas from research into policy.

Both the UK's Labour Government and Scotland's devolved Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition Executive have committed themselves to reducing health inequalities. Furthermore, both institutions have emphasised the importance of using evidence to inform policy responses. In light of such political commitments, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in the field of health inequalities in order to: (i) review the available research evidence; (ii) assess the extent to which policies have been based on this research evidence; and (iii) evaluate the success (or failure) of policies to tackle health inequalities. Yet so far only limited attention has been given to exploring how key actors involved in research-policy dialogues understand the processes involved. In an attempt to address this gap, this article draws on data from semi-structured interviews with 58 key actors in the field of health inequalities research and policymaking in the UK to argue that it is ideas, rather than research evidence, which have travelled from research into policy. The descriptions of the varying journeys of these ideas fit three types--successful, partial and fractured--each of which is outlined with reference to one example. The paper then employs existing theories about research-policy relations and the movement of ideas in an attempt to illuminate and better understand the contrasting journeys. In the concluding discussion, it is argued that the third approach, which focuses on the entrepreneurial processes involved in the marketing of ideas, is most helpful in understanding the research findings, but that this needs to be discussed in relation to the political context within which negotiations take place.

England↗