General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021

Théo Duguet · Gladys E. Ibañez · Matthieu Schuers · Jean‐Pierre Lebeau · Kristell Roser · Jean‐Sébastien Cadwallader

7 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of General Practice

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Writing and Publishing Medical Research and Practices

Abstract

Background There are various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used to index general practice research, without consistency. Aim To understand how general practice-related research is indexed in the main general practice journals between 2011 and 2021, and to analyse the factors that influenced the choice of the general practice-related MeSH. Design and setting This was a quantitative bibliometric study conducted on MEDLINE. Method MeSH were selected according to the international definition of General Practice/Family Medicine: ‘General Practice’, ‘Primary Health Care’, ‘Family Practice’, ‘General Practitioners’, ‘Physicians, Primary Care’, and ‘Physicians, Family’. Their use was studied from 2011 to 2021 on MEDLINE, reviewing the 20 general practice journals with the highest impact factors. A descriptive and analytical approach was used; the association of the country, journal, and year with the choice of general practice-related MeSH terms was analysed. Results A total of 8514 of 150 286 articles (5.7%) were using one of the general practice-related MeSH terms. The most used were ‘Primary Health Care’ (4648/9984, 46.6%) and ‘General Practice’ (2841/9984, 28.5%). A total of 80.0% (6172/7723) of the articles were related to the UK or US and 71.0% (6055/8514) of the articles came from four journals (BJGP,BMJ,Journal of General Internal Medicine, andAnnals of Family Medicine). Two main country clusters emerged from the use of general practice-related MeSH: a British cluster mainly using ‘General Practice’ and an American cluster using ‘Primary Health Care’. The journals also mainly differed in their used of these two MeSH terms. Conclusion Important variations in the indexation of general practice research were found. Researchers should consider combining ‘Primary Health Care’ and ‘General Practice’ in their PubMed searches to access all the general practice research, regardless of their country of origin.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

References

2019Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations 2014Causes for the Persistence of Impact Factor Mania 2013The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment 2011Research output on primary care in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States: bibliometric analysis 2005PubMed perspective of family medicine research: where does it stand?2019Development of Primary Care Research in North America, Europe, and Australia From 1974 to 2017 2005What is the future of primary care research?2015Classic Citations in Main Primary Health Care Journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.