ArticleBMJ open2021
Identifying patients with psychosocial problems in general practice: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifications of Similarity Metrics for Patients With Cancer: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 7: Qualitative evidence synthesis for emerging themes in primary care research: Scoping review, meta-ethnography and rapid realist review.The European journal of general practice · 2023Review
- Interprofessional collaboration to support patients with social problems in general practice-a qualitative focus group study.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Identifying patients with psychosocial problems in general practice: A scoping review.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPsychosocial problems (PSPs) are common issues associated with negative health outcomes. Since general practitioners are the first point of contact for any health-related concern, understanding their options to recognise patients with PSPs plays an important role as it is essential for early intervention and can prevent serious conditions. The objective of our scoping review is to map published evidence on the usage of instruments to identify patients with PSPs in general practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual on scoping reviews. A systematic search of four electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) will be conducted for quantitative and qualitative studies published in English, Spanish, French and German. Main study characteristics as well as information on identification instruments will be extracted and visualised in structured tables to map the available evidence. The protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework, https://osfio/c2m6z. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as we will not collect personal data. Dissemination will consist of publications, presentations and other knowledge translation activities.
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.