ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Notes from the Field: Results from the
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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commonality of 25 component themes of integrated care for children: rapid review of 170 models.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo collect data and gain an understanding of parental satisfaction with and attitudes toward treatment in a pediatric integrated primary care (IPC) model. DATA SOURCES: Primary data were collected across the United States over the course of a few months. STUDY
designThe 35-item, Parent Acceptance of Pediatric Integrated Care Survey (PAPICS) was developed by a panel of IPC experts. The survey was then distributed through the Qualtrics Panels Service with recruited participants (i.e., parents with children under 18-years-old) receiving a $4.00 incentive for their involvement. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsA single exploratory factor analysis was performed along with four factor retention tests and clinical judgment to guide factor selection. A 5-factor structure was selected. PRINCIPAL
findingsParents reported a high level of comfort with an IPC model and a favorable attitude toward child therapy, with some concerns regarding psychological stigma and privacy. Notable variation in parents' beliefs regarding one-on-one psychological service delivery were observed.
conclusionsResults provided evidence for parental openness to an IPC model. Findings also highlighted potential fundamental misunderstandings regarding evidence-based psychological treatment methods for children and adolescents.
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.