Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37080631›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Whole person assessment for family medicine: a systematic review.

Hayley Robyn Thomas, Megan Best, David Chua, David King, Johanna Lynch

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Measuring Whole Person Health: A Scoping Review.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Hayley Robyn ThomasGeneral Practice Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia h.thomas@uq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-8801-894X
Megan BestInstitute for Ethics and Society, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David ChuaGeneral Practice Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
David KingGeneral Practice Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Johanna LynchGeneral Practice Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify and evaluate clinical approaches to whole person assessment (WPA) that are translatable to family medicine regarding feasibility, quality and alignment with theoretical models of whole person care (WPC).

designSystematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ATLA Religion databases were searched through 9 March 2020, with additional handsearches. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language clinical assessments of multiple domains; which involve patient-clinician interaction and are translatable to general practice (GP); from the fields of medicine, allied health, nursing, mental health and pastoral care. Tools designed for single diseases or symptoms, for outcome rather than clinical assessment or with outdated classification systems were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We appraised the quality of included papers using Johanna Briggs' Institute Checklists and Terwee's criteria for validation studies. Clinical assessments' alignment with theoretical WPC, feasibility for adaptation to GP and quality were examined. We analysed extracted data using framework synthesis.

resultsSearches retrieved 7535 non-duplicate items. Fifty-nine were included after screening, describing 42 WPA methods and representing multiple disciplines, purposes and formats. All included assessments aligned partially with models of WPC, but most did not adequately encompass all aspects of WPC. Robustness varied significantly and was often inadequately described. We judged none of the identified assessments to be ideal as a multipurpose WPA in GP. Some could be used for specific purposes, such as elicitation of patient perspectives or complexity assessment.

conclusionsWhile no WPAs were found that were sufficient for broad implementation in GP, some approaches may be suitable with adaptation and evaluation. Strengths of existing approaches could inform WPA development in future. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020164417.

Indexed as

Family PracticeGeneral PracticeHumansMental HealthSelf CareGENERAL MEDICINE (see Internal Medicine)MENTAL HEALTHPRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID37080631
PMCPMC10124221

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.