ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Development of Best Practice Guidelines for Primary Care to Support Patients Who Use Substances.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community engagement in health guidelines and other normative products: a methodological review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Review
- Developing an interprofessional collaboration for COPD patients in primary care: a participatory action research approach.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- The Shadow Pandemic of Alcohol Use during COVID-19: A Canadian Health Leadership Imperative.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2021Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPeople who use substances often mistrust the primary care system, impeding access.
objectivesTo build on research clarifying how to improve patients' feelings of safety, through co-creating best practice guidelines with physicians and patient representatives.
methodsAfter obtaining Research Ethics Board approval, this qualitative study engaged 22 participants including patients, physicians, and health system partners. We held a series of workshops, co-facilitated by patients and researchers, corresponding to 3 phases of the research: (1) establishment of cultural safety processes for participants during the workshops; (2) a facilitated, collaborative world café to develop guideline content; (3) validation of best practice guidelines. An implementation plan was developed and implemented. Finally, an external peer review was conducted by McGill University.
resultsBest practices guidelines were developed giving the patient perspective on how to enhance primary care, as follows: (1) become trauma informed; (2) consider your clinical environment; (3) build a network; (4) supply an array of resources; (5) co-create a long-term treatment plan; (6) help me to stay healthy; (7) ensure timely access to specialized medical and surgical care; (8) be an advocate; (9) ask for feedback; (10) follow up. Resources were developed and disseminated.
conclusionThe best practice guidelines reflect the patients' perspectives on common challenges patients have encountered, which impede their access to primary care. They support primary care physicians in providing more effective services to this challenging population of patients.
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.