ArticleAtencion primaria2022
[Health Professionals expectations' about the benefit of regular Primary Care interventions].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimExamine the expectations expressed by healthcare professionals about the benefit of several primary prevention interventions that are usually carried out in The Primary Care Consultations with evidence from moderate-high validity studies.
designDescriptive Cross-sectional Study by Survey. SITTING: Spanish Primary Healthcare Centers, between February 6 and May 5, 2020.
participantsGeneral Practitioner and other practicing Primary Care professionals. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: a) the number and percentage of participants whose estimate of benefit deviates from the benefit supported by the evidence; b) the magnitudes of OVERestimation, NORMOestimation and UNDERestimation of each participant and each professional subgroup.
resultsOf the 701 respondents (67% women), 694 answered all eight questions and 4 between one and seven. The overestimation of benefit in the 8 interventions ranged from 86% to 90% of all medical participants and between 90% and 96% of all nursing participants.
conclusionsMost of the surveyed (healthcare) professionals overestimate both, prevention activities and preventive treatments, this may lead them to instil false hope in patients, to put patients at risk of serious side effects arising from such interventions and to squander resources.
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.