ArticleCureus2024
The Usage of the Term "Social" in Japanese Primary Care Literature.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere has been a growing recognition of the importance of incorporating a "social" perspective in primary care practice. However, the specific meaning of the term "social" in the context of primary care is often not clearly defined or explained in the literature. This study aims to explore the usage and interpretation of the term "social" in primary care discourse in Japan.
methodsWe collected papers containing the term "social" ("shakai-teki" in Japanese) from 810 papers published between 2010 and 2022 in the Official Journal of the Japan Primary Care Association. Through abductive coding, we examined how the term was employed and the different meanings attributed to it.
resultsThe instances of using the term "social" were classified into five distinct categories: (i) non-medical, (ii) emphasizing the importance of topics, (iii) public as an object, (iv) connections with people who support health and well-being, and (v) structural inequities that are detrimental to health. Conclusion: The analysis revealed that the term "social" in the context of primary care discourse was multifaceted and characterized by ambiguity. To ensure effective communication and clarity in discussions, it is crucial for primary care professionals to have a clear understanding of the intended meaning and implications of the term "social."
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.