Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editor's Briefing

Editor's Briefing

Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X660599
Roger Jones
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

A NEW YEAR

We begin 2013 with a series of important studies that aim to quantify cancer risk in order to focus investigations in primary care, from Julia Hippisley-Cox, Willie Hamilton, and others, followed by a valuable analysis of risk assessment tools (RATs) for suspected cancer. John Emery’s editorial provides the context in which RATs and other measures of risk have been developed and can be implemented, including their potential integration within clinical software. Many GPs routinely use electronic cardiovascular risk calculators based on numerical data such as lipid levels and blood pressure — will they find cancer risk calculators as acceptable and useful? Hamilton and colleagues’ evaluation of RATs reports welcome preliminary evidence of their acceptability and use among GPs to help select patients suspected of lung or colorectal cancer for investigation and referral. The new Q research models published in this edition, Emery writes, offer more precise guidance on which cancer is most likely, and therefore which diagnostic pathway is best, for the investigation of men and women presenting in primary care with a range of common symptoms. The challenge is to determine how best to incorporate these models into routine clinical practice.

There are three innovations for the Journal this month. The first is the BJGP/RCGP Critical Reading resource, that we hope will be of value to readers, writers, researchers, and others in clinical and academic primary care wishing to take a more structured approach to assessing the reliability and relevance of research. I am enormously grateful to the authors of this document, drawn from our large pool of peer reviewers, for their excellent contributions. Thanks also to the authors of the papers that we have dissected and to the other reviewers for allowing us access to their material. This resource is freely available via the BJGP website and we will be pleased to receive feedback on the present document and suggestions for ways to make it more useful and, perhaps, more interactive.

The second is a new series which we hope will rehabilitate the Cochrane Collaboration with some of our readers and contributors, who have found the lengthy full Cochrane reviews daunting and inaccessible. PEARLS (practical evidence about real life situations) is a project devised by Professor Bruce Arroll at Auckland, with colleagues from the Netherlands and Ireland, who are funded by the New Zealand Guideline group, through the Cochrane Primary Care Field, to produce ‘minimalist, structured summaries’ of Cochrane reviews relevant to general practice and primary care. We will be publishing these monthly for this year, and probably beyond. Again, please let us know what you think of them.

Finally, our senior ethics advisor, Dr David Misselbrook, has written a beautiful A–Z series on medical philosophy. He introduces it himself in a short editorial, and it is a privilege to be able to publish these articles, which we hope will entertain, stimulate, and inform.

A few months ago the Journal had a strong focus on global health, and dealt with exotic illnesses and less-developed parts of the globe. The delivery of good primary care in cities is no less of a challenge, and one which has been brought back into the foreground in the UK by a recent report on general practice in London from the King’s Fund.1 Controversially, the report has compared health indicators in London with national averages, but even with this stringent comparison —contrasting data from some of the poorest and the wealthiest parts of the country— London seems to be able to do conspicuously well in many conditions (including stroke and diabetes), while, unsurprisingly for a city with huge cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity, significant challenges remain. The inexorable impact of deprivation on health outcomes in cities is as apparent in London, comparing, say, Westminster with Tower Hamlets, as it is in New York, comparing the Bronx with Queen’s and Manhattan —with differences in life expectancy of 4–7 years between the most affluent and most deprived of these city areas. We are keen to receive original research and commentary on ‘urbanicity’, for want of a better word, and may be able to create a themed issue of the Journal on this topic in the wake of the City Health International Conference being held at the RCGP, London, on April 24th–26th 2013 (http://bit.ly/UhY7JE).

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Raleigh V,
    2. Tian Y,
    3. Goodwin N,
    4. et al.
    (2012) General practice in London: supporting improvements in quality (King’s Fund, London) http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/articles/general-practice-london-supporting-improvements-quality(accessed 11 Dec 2012).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (606)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 606
January 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

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.
Editor's Briefing
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Editor's Briefing
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): 3. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X660599

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Editor's Briefing
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (606): 3. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X660599
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • A NEW YEAR
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Editor's Briefing
  • Editor's Briefing
Show more Editor's Briefing

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

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

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

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

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242