ArticleAfrican journal of primary health care & family medicine2017
Evaluating the effect of the Practical Approach to Care Kit on teaching medical students primary care: Quasi-experimental study.
Article in African journal of primary health care & family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advancing knowledge translation practices to accelerate change in adolescent and youth sexual and reproductive health practice: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Article
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
backgroundSouth Africa is committed to health reforms that strengthen primary health care. Preparing future doctors to work in primary care teams with other professionals is a priority, and medical schools have shifted towards community-based and decentralised training of medical students.
aimTo evaluate the effect on student performance of the Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) (an integrated decision-making tool for adult primary care) during the final phase of medical student training at Stellenbosch University.
settingClinical rotations in family medicine at clinics in the Western Cape.
methodsMixed methods involving a quasi-experimental study and focus group interviews. Student examination performance was compared between groups with and without exposure to the PACK during their clinical training. Student groups exposed to PACK were interviewed at the end of their rotations.
resultsStudent performance in examinations was significantly better in those exposed to the PACK. Students varied from using the PACK overtly or covertly during the consultation to checking up on decisions made after the consultation. Some felt that the PACK was more suitable for nurses or more junior students. Although tutors openly endorsed PACK, very few modelled the use of PACK in their clinical practice.
conclusionThe use of PACK in the final phase of undergraduate medical education improved their performance in primary care. Students might be more accepting and find the tool more useful in the earlier clinical rotations. Supervisors should be trained further in how to incorporate the use of the PACK in their practice and educational conversations.
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.