Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35473744›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Causal explanations for patient engagement with primary care services in Saudi Arabia: a realist review protocol.

Alaa Alghamdi, Ruth Abrams, Julia V Bailey, Paula Alves, Sophie Park

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Alaa AlghamdiDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK alaa.alghamdi.18@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6487-3896
Ruth AbramsLecturer and researcher of workforce, organisation and wellbeing, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Julia V BaileyDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.
Paula AlvesLecturer in Psychology, School of Human Sciences, Faculty of Education, Health and Human Sciences, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Sophie ParkDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Health Care, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSaudi Arabia (SA) has a rapidly developing universal healthcare system which is maturing from its hospital focused origins. However, health service usage suggests that up to 65% of the cases seen in emergency departments were classified as non-urgent and could have been appropriately managed in primary healthcare (PHC) settings. Primary care development in SA has lagged behind secondary care, and evidence suggests that Saudi citizens are currently ambivalent or dissatisfied with their PHC services. Previous research has focused on the quality and patient satisfaction of PHC services in SA. Yet, uncertainty still exists about causal explanations for patient engagement with PHC services and what refinements are needed for PHC. Less attention has been paid to how patient engagement strategies might work differently, which is increasingly recognised as important in PHC services. The aim of this review is to understand the causal explanations for patient engagement with PHC and to generate theory of how the intended outcome of patient engagement with PHC in SA might be achieved through identified contexts and mechanisms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence. Databases including Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL will be searched. Literature will be included if it has relevance to the research question, and is trustworthy in nature. All document types will be screened including peer reviewed articles, relevant grey literature and related media items. All study types will be included. Stakeholders' feedback will also inform our review. A realist approach is suitable for this review because patient engagement with PHC services is a complex phenomenon. A range of different relevant data will be included in the following stages: developing an initial programme theory, searching the evidence, selecting data, extracting data, synthesising data and refining the programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will use secondary data, and stakeholders are involved only to shape our understanding of the important contexts in patient engagement; hence, a formal ethics review is not required. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020175955.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationResearch DesignCausalityHumansPrimary Health CareReview Literature as TopicSaudi ArabiaInternational health servicesPRIMARY CAREPUBLIC HEALTHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID35473744
PMCPMC9045118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.