ArticleLondon journal of primary care2014
Understanding context in healthcare research and development.
Article in London journal of primary care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- From data to medical context: the power of categorization in healthcare.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Nurturing an organizational context that supports team-based primary mental health care: A grounded theory study.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Perspective of Residents Living With Dementia Toward Their Built Environment: A Walking Interview Study in German Nursing Homes.Innovation in aging · 2024Article
- Social workers' formal and informal leadership in interprofessional primary care teams in Ontario, Canada.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Inequities in the delivery of mental health care: a grounded theory study of the policy context of primary care.International journal for equity in health · 2021Article
- "It's Not as Simple as Just Looking at One Chart": A Qualitative Study Exploring Clinician's Opinions on Various Visualisation Strategies to Represent Longitudinal Actigraphy Data.Digital biomarkers · 2020Article
- What is evidence?London journal of primary care · 2014Article
- Evaluating the care of patients with long term conditions.London journal of primary care · 2014Article
- Understanding context in healthcare research and development.London journal of primary care · 2014Article
- Evidence-based practice: reflections from five European case studies.London journal of primary care · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a review of a paper by Bayliss et al in the Annals of Family Medicine that argues that traditional research methods 'are not well suited to addressing multi-faceted problems, such as understanding the complex interaction of multi-morbid chronic illness with social, environmental and healthcare systems'. Bayliss et al conclude that research that can be relied on requires methods that are 'participatory, mixed methods, multi-level, and engage communities'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.