ArticleScientific reports2023
Depressive primary care patients' assessment of received collaborative care.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- PACIC: patient activation and problem solving not related to age in patients with depressive symptoms.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Quality of health care in Primary Care: perspective of people with Diabetes Mellitus.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
- Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and Its Influence on Patient Compliance With Hypertension: A Cross-Sectional Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The "Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care" (PACIC) is a tool for evaluating outpatient health service for patients with chronic diseases. Our aim was to analyze the association between PACIC scores of primary care patients with depression and patients' or patients' general practitioners' (GPs) characteristics. In a data set including depressive primary care patients (N = 280) the association of patient characteristics (sex, age, depressive symptom severity, suicidal ideation) with PACIC scores were assessed by linear regression models. The association between GPs' characteristics (type, location of practice; age, qualification of practitioner) and PACIC scores was assessed by linear mixed models with individual practices as random effects. Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) scores at 12 months follow up and changes in PHQ-9 scores from baseline to follow up were significantly positive associated with higher PACIC scores (beta = 0.67, 95%-CI [0.02, 1.34]). PACIC scores were not associated with patients' sex (p = 0.473) or age (p = 0.531). GP's age was negatively associated with PACIC scores (p = 0.03). In conclusion, in patients with depression, the PACIC is independent from patients' and GPs' characteristics. The PACIC may be appropriate to assess patient-perspective on depression services in primary care.
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.