ArticleBMJ open2020
Knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals to frailty screening in primary care: a systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspectives of older adults, caregivers, healthcare providers on frailty screening in primary care: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis.BMC geriatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Why are frailty indices not used systematically during preoperative spine consultations?Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFrailty is an increasingly common condition in which physiological decline as a result of accumulated deficits renders older people more vulnerable to adverse outcomes. An increasing range of frailty screening programmes have been introduced in primary care to identify frail older people in order to deliver appropriate interventions. However, limited information on the knowledge and attitude of healthcare professionals (HCPs) with respect to frailty screening is known. The aim of this systematic review is to provide evidence on the knowledge and attitude of HCP in terms of frailty screening, and potentially identify barriers and facilitators to frailty screening to improve implementation of frailty screening in primary care. METHODS/
designA systematic review of qualitative research will be conducted. Databases searched will be MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Web of Science from January 2001 to August 2019. Methods will be reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Population, interest, context and study design methodology was used to develop inclusion and exclusion criteria with HCPs as population, frailty screening as interest and knowledge or attitude of HCPs to frailty screening as context. Studies with a qualitative methodology or a mixed-method design where the qualitative component is analysed separately will also be included. Quality appraisal will be carried out using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Data will be extracted from each selected study with thematic framework analysis used to synthesise findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require ethical approval as primary data will not be collected. The findings will be disseminated at conferences and in a relevant academic journal. This review will assist HCPs and relevant stakeholders to tackle the challenges of frailty screening in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019159007.
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.