Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636726›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Psychosocial interventions by general practitioners.

M J H Huibers, A J H M Beurskens, G Bleijenberg, C P van Schayck

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Psychological treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2009
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Observational
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J H HuibersMaastricht University, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, P.O. Box 616, Maastricht, Netherlands, 6200 MD. m.huibers@dmkep.unimaas.nl
A J H M Beurskens
G Bleijenberg
C P van Schayck
Maastricht University · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients visit their general practitioner (GP) because of problems that are psychosocial in origin. However, for many of these problems there is no evidence-based treatment available in primary care, and these patients place time-consuming demands on their GP. Therefore, GPs could benefit from tools to help these patients more effectively and efficiently. In this light, it is important to assess whether structured psychosocial interventions might be an appropriate tool for GPs. Previous reviews have shown that psychosocial interventions in primary care seem more effective than usual care. However, these interventions were mostly performed by health professionals other than the GP.

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners by assessing the clinical outcomes and the methodological quality of selected studies. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search was conducted using the CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References on 20/10/2005, The Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies for citation tracking and personal communication with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled patient preference trials addressing the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions by GPs for any problem or disorder. Studies published before November 2005 were eligible for entry. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality was independently assessed by two review authors using the Maastricht-Amsterdam Criteria List. The qualitative and quantitative characteristics of selected trials were independently extracted by two review authors using a standardised data extraction form. Levels of evidence were used to determine the strength of the evidence available. Results from studies that reported similar interventions and outcome measures were meta-analysed. MAIN

resultsTen studies were included in the review. Selected studies addressed different psychosocial interventions for five distinct disorders or health complaints. There is good evidence that problem-solving treatment by general practitioners is effective for major depression. The evidence concerning the remaining interventions for other health complaints (reattribution or cognitive behavioural group therapy for somatisation, cognitive behavioural therapy for unexplained fatigue, counselling for smoking cessation, behavioural interventions to reduce alcohol reduction) is either limited or conflicting. AUTHORS'

conclusionsIn general, there is little available evidence on the use of psychosocial interventions by general practitioners. Of the psychosocial interventions reviewed, problem-solving treatment for depression may offer promise, although a stronger evidence-base is required and the effectiveness in routine practice remains to be demonstrated. More research is required to improve the evidence-base on this subject.

Indexed as

Family PracticePsychotherapyAlcohol DrinkingCognitive Behavioral TherapyCounselingDepressionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSmoking CessationSomatoform Disorders

Identifiers

PMID17636726
PMCPMC7003673
OpenAlexW2125747945

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.