ReviewBMJ open2022
Improving primary prevention of acute rheumatic fever in Australia: consensus primary care priorities identified through an eDelphi process.
Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The epidemiology of superficial Streptococcal A (impetigo and pharyngitis) infections in Australia: A systematic review.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Co-designing a structured referral template to enhance dementia diagnosis: a modified e-Delphi study.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- Addressing the challenge of rheumatic heart disease in Pakistan: A call to action.Dialogues in health · 2025Article
- The projections of global and regional rheumatic heart disease burden from 2020 to 2030.Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish the priorities of primary care providers to improve assessment and treatment of skin sores and sore throats among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at risk of acute rheumatic fever (ARF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD).
designModified eDelphi survey, informed by an expert focus group and literature review.
settingPrimary care services in any one of the five Australian states or territories with a high burden of ARF.
participantsPeople working in any primary care role within the last 5 years in jurisdiction with a high burden of ARF.
resultsNine people participated in the scoping expert focus group which informed identification of an access framework for subsequent literature review. Fifteen broad concepts, comprising 29 strategies and 63 different actions, were identified on this review. These concepts were presented to participants in a two-round eDelphi survey. Twenty-six participants from five jurisdictions participated, 16/26 (62%) completed both survey rounds. Seven strategies were endorsed as high priorities. Most were demand-side strategies with a focus on engaging communities and individuals in accessible, comprehensive, culturally appropriate primary healthcare. Eight strategies were not endorsed as high priority, all of which were supply-side approaches. Qualitative responses highlighted the importance of a comprehensive primary healthcare approach as standard of care rather than disease-specific strategies related to management of skin sores and sore throat.
conclusionPrimary care staff priorities should inform Australia's commitments to reduce the burden of RHD. In particular, strategies to support comprehensive Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary care services rather than an exclusive focus on discrete, disease-specific initiatives are needed.
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.