ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2007
Learning by doing: a novel approach to improving general practitioners' diagnostic skills for common mental disorders.
Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview is useful and well accepted as part of the clinical assessment for depression and anxiety in primary care: a mixed-methods study.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- [Psychosomatic aspects of dry eye syndrome].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2016Article
- Prescription of benzodiazepines in Slovenian family medicine: a qualitative study.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2010Article
- Psychosomatic medicine in primary care: influence of training.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTwo strategies have been proposed to increase the rather low recognition rate of common mental disorders in primary care: (1) the use of screening instruments and (2) extensive psychiatric training for general practitioners. We have chosen a "middle-of-the-road" approach to teach general practitioners by means of a time-saving psychiatric training programme how to make their own psychiatric diagnoses. This pilot study aimed at assessing the acceptance of this programme, its impact on general practitioners' knowledge of 12 ICD-10 disorders - depressive, anxiety and alcohol-related disorders - and the short-term persistence of the knowledge acquired.
methodsThe training programme consisted of two 3-hour sessions four weeks apart. An educational instrument, a short interview named TRIPS (Training for Interactive Psychiatric Screening), a shortened and adapted form of PRIME-MD, was used to train single-handed general practitioners in Vienna, Austria. TRIPS had to be used by the participants in daily practice in between sessions. Five weeks after the second training session a follow-up evaluation was held to assess the persistence of the knowledge acquired. The perceived usefulness of TRIPS was assessed by a short questionnaire. Knowledge was assessed by a separate 15-item questionnaire.
resultsOf the 31 participating general practitioners 26 attended all three sessions. There was a significant increase in the mean number of correctly answered questions between baseline (5.5 of 15) and session two (9.8; p<0.0001), and a further increase between the second and the follow-up session (11.3; p<0.05). Also, general practitioners rated TRIPS as a practical and useful tool for family practice and stated that its use met with patients' approval.
conclusionThe format chosen was successful in its intended educational endpoints. According to participants TRIPS is appropriate for the family practice situation and is accepted by patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17347861What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.