Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275453›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

What is a prevention visit? A qualitative study of a structured approach to prevention and screening - the BETTER WISE project.

N Sopcak, C Fernandes, M A O'Brien, D Ofosu, M Wong, T Wong, M Kebbe, D Manca

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

N SopcakDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. nsopcak@ualberta.ca.
C FernandesDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
M A O'BrienDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
D OfosuDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
M WongDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
T WongStrategic Clinical Networks, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Canada.
M KebbePennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA.
D MancaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAAlberta Health Services · CALouisiana State University · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis qualitative study is a sub-component of BETTER WISE, a comprehensive and structured approach that proactively addresses chronic disease prevention, screening, and cancer survivorship, including screening for poverty and addressing lifestyle risks for patients aged 40 to 65. Patients (n = 527) from 13 primary care clinics (urban, rural, and remote) in Alberta, Ontario, and Newfoundland & Labrador, Canada agreed to participate in the study and were invited to a one-hour prevention visit delivered by a Prevention Practitioner (PP) as part of BETTER WISE. We identified the key components of a BETTER WISE prevention visit based on patients' and primary care providers' perspectives.

methodsPrimary care providers (PPs, physicians and their staff) participated in 14 focus groups and 19 key informant interviews to share their perspectives on the BETTER WISE project. Of 527 patients who agreed to participate in the study and were invited for a BETTER WISE prevention visit with a PP, we received 356 patient feedback forms. We also collected field notes and memos and employed thematic analysis using a constant comparative method focusing on the BETTER WISE prevention visit.

resultsWe identified four key themes related to a BETTER WISE prevention visit: 1) Creating a safe environment and building trust with patients: PPs provided sufficient time and a safe space for patients to share what was important to them, including their concerns related to poverty, alcohol consumption, and mental health, topics that were often not shared with physicians; 2) Providing personalized health education: PPs used the BETTER WISE tools to provide patients with a personalized overview of their health status and eligible screening; 3) Non-judgmental empowering of patients: Instead of directing patients on what to do, PPs evoked patients' preferences and helped them to set goals (if desired); and 4) Integrating care for patients: PPs clarified information from patients' charts and surveys with physicians and helped patients to navigate resources within and outside of the primary care team.

conclusionsThe results of this study underscore the importance of personalized, trusting, non-judgmental, and integrated relationships between primary care providers and patients to effectively address chronic disease prevention, screening, and cancer survivorship as demonstrated by the BETTER WISE prevention visits.

trial registrationThis qualitative study is a sub-component of the BETTER WISE pragmatic, cRCT, trial registration ISRCTN21333761 (date of registration 19/12/2016).

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningPrimary Health CareChronic DiseaseHumansOntarioQualitative ResearchChronic DiseasePatient Care TeamPrimary CarePrimary PreventionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID34275453
PMCPMC8287802
OpenAlexW3185820538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.