Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35788186›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2022

Interprofessional collaboration to support patients with social problems in general practice-a qualitative focus group study.

Thomas Kloppe, Britta Tetzlaff, Claudia Mews, Thomas Zimmermann, Martin Scherer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas Kloppe *Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. t.kloppe@uke.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2368-8333
Britta Tetzlaff *Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Claudia MewsDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Thomas ZimmermannDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial problems of patients such as family or work-related conflicts as well as financial difficulties affect the individual health situation and the treatment of diseases in general practice. General practitioners (GPs) would like to have direct access to professionals in social care services. In Germany, there are many different social care facilities for people with a wide range of social problems. As the social and health care systems hardly interact collaborations between social professionals (SPs) and GPs are rare exceptions. This study explored perspectives of GPs regarding their patients with social problems in combination with the perspectives of SPs. Aim of this study was to explore how a systematic interprofessional collaboration between GPs and SPs could be realised.

methodsWe carried out a participatory sequential qualitative study design consisting of two focus groups with GPs, two with SPs and two mixed-professional focus groups with GPs and SPs. The focus groups were conducted with semi-structured moderating guidelines and analysed with a qualitative content analysis approach using inductive and deductive categories.

resultsGPs view themselves as the first point of contact for their patients' social problems. For persistent social problems, they expressed a desire for support and SPs were willing to provide this. We developed a stepped care implementation model for a systematic cooperation consisting of nine collaboration strategies. These strategies included: index or website of social care services, referrals to the social care system, using flyers and posters of social care services, direct contact/hotline to local social care services, participation in meetings of social care facilities, involving physician assistants, external social care advice service in GP rooms, implementation in education and training and access to volunteers.

conclusionsOur stepped care implementation model for a systematic cooperation of GPs and SPs could be a feasible need- and resource-oriented approach for the collaborative care of patients with social problems to improve their medical treatment in most western healthcare systems. GPs and SPs are ready to generate the necessary evidence for policy makers in high quality RCTs.

Indexed as

General PracticeFamily PracticeFocus GroupsHumansQualitative ResearchSocial ProblemsCollaborationCooperationGeneral practitionersInterprofessionalQualitative studySocial care practitionersSocial care systemSocial determinants of healthSocial professionals

Identifiers

PMID35788186
PMCPMC9251943
OpenAlexW4283821451

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.