Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15928218›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Longitudinal research and data collection in primary care.

Chris van Weel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect of shared care on blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Longitudinal studies.Journal of thoracic disease · 2015
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Thirty-minute compared to standardised office blood pressure measurement in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2011
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Chris van WeelDepartment of Family Medicine, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. C.vanWeel@hag.umcn.nl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis article reviews examples of and experience with longitudinal research in family medicine. The objective is to use this empirical information to formulate recommendations for improving longitudinal research.

methodsThe article discusses 3 longitudinal studies from the Nijmegen academic family practice research network: 1 on the prognosis of depression and 1 each on the prognosis of and outcomes of care for type 2 diabetes mellitus. The Nijmegen network has recorded all episodes of morbidity encountered in Dutch family medicine since 1971 in a stable practice population. This network's experience is evaluated to identify lessons that may help other practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in pursuing longitudinal research.

resultsIn terms of external conditions (conditions related to the general setting), the stability of a population and a high level of continuity of care substantially enhance the ability to perform longitudinal research. In terms of internal conditions (conditions related to the PBRN), motivation of family physicians and their staff to conduct ongoing data collection, and their ownership of the data are key for success. Other critical internal conditions include standardization of data; collection of data by clinician-friendly means; training of family physicians and their staff in data collection, as well as meetings for discussion of this task; provision of feedback to practices on the research findings; use of standard procedures to promote adherence to data collection; availability of facilities for regular measurement of patients' health status or chart review; and use of mechanisms for tracking patients who leave the practice area.

conclusionsInsight from existing experience suggests that longitudinal research can be enhanced in PBRNs. The best way forward is to build longitudinal data collection by drawing on lessons from successful studies. Primary care research policy should advocate for a role of longitudinal research and stimulate its development in PBRNs under favorable population circumstances.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchData CollectionDepressionDiabetes MellitusFamily PracticeGuidelines as TopicHealth Services ResearchHumansLongitudinal StudiesNetherlandsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID15928218
PMCPMC1466952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.