ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2023
Assessing Social Circumstances in Primary Care: Expert Consensus via Delphi Technique.
Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Family caregiver facilitating access to healthcare and providing daily support for older patients: A descriptive study.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
- Daily Pleasure and Difficulties among Older Patients: Primary Care Setting in Japan.JMA journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: In the Japanese primary care setting, a set of questions to screen patients' social circumstances has never been developed in a scientific manner. This project aimed to reach a consensus among diverse experts to develop a set of such questions, to meet the need for assessing patients' health-related social circumstances. Methods: We used a Delphi technique to generate expert consensus. The expert panel was composed of various clinical professionals, medical trainees, researchers, support members for marginalized people, and patients. We conducted multiple rounds of communication online. In round 1, the participants provided their opinions about what health care professionals should ask to assess patients' social circumstances in primary care settings. These data were analyzed into several themes. In round 2, all themes were confirmed by consensus. Results: Sixty-one people participated in the panel. All participants completed the rounds. Six themes were generated and confirmed: economic condition and employment, access to health care and other services, living in everyday life and leisure time, total physiological needs, tools and technology, and history of the patient's life. In addition, the panelists emphasized the importance of respecting the patient's preferences and values. Conclusion: A questionnaire, abbreviated by the acronym of HEALTH+P, was developed. Further research about its clinical feasibility and impact on patient outcomes is warranted.
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.