ArticleBMJ open2022
Recording of patients' mental health and quality of life-related outcomes in primary care: a cross-sectional study in the UK.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The gap between guidelines and clinical practice in cancer-related fatigue management: a mixed-methods systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Pooled it
- Early, medium and long-term mental health in cancer survivors compared with cancer-free comparators: matched cohort study using linked UK electronic health records.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Psychotropic prescribing after hospital discharge in survivors of critical illness, a retrospective cohort study (2012-2019).Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare patient-reported anxiety, depression and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes, with data registered in patients' primary care electronic health record (EHR).
designCross-sectional study.
settingPrimary care in the UK.
participantsA convenience sample of 608 women registered in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database (data from a previous study on 356 breast cancer survivors (8.1 years postdiagnosis) and 252 women with no prior cancer). OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported data on anxiety, depression and QoL, collected through postal questionnaires, and compared with coded information in EHR up to 2 years prior.
resultsAbnormal anxiety symptoms were reported by 118 of 599 women who answered the relevant questions (21%); 59/118 (50%) had general practitioner (GP)-recorded anxiolytic/antidepressant use, and 2 (1.6%) had anxiety coded in the EHR. 26/601 women (11%) reported depression symptoms, of whom 17 (65.4%) had GP-recorded antidepressant use and none had depression coded. 65 of 123 women reporting distress on the pain QoL domain (52.8%) had a corresponding record in the EHR <3 months before and 92 (74.8%) <24 months before. No patients reporting fatigue (n=157), sexual health problems (156), social avoidance (82) or cognitive problems (93) had corresponding codes in the EHR. There were no meaningful differences in the concordance results between breast cancer survivors and women with no history of cancer.
conclusionMany patients reporting mental health and QoL problems had no record of this in coded primary care data. This finding suggests that coded data does not fully reflect the burden of disease. Further research is needed to understand whether or not GPs are aware of patient distress in cases where codes have not been recorded.
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.