Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38406229›Full record

ArticlePRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)2024

Call to Action: A Faculty Survey to Inform Future Efforts at Student-Run Clinics.

Nina Piazza, Alyssa Bruehlman

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nina Piazza *University of Rochester Department of Family Medicine, Rochester, NY.
Alyssa Bruehlman *University Pennsylvania Department of Family Medicine and Community Health.
University of Pennsylvania Health System · USUniversity of Rochester · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Existing literature about student-run clinics (SRCs) often focuses on student rather than patient experiences. To begin to gather data on norms and practices at SRCs nationally, this pilot study surveyed faculty leaders from SRCs around the country about metrics such as clinic organization, patient demographics, and care services. Methods: A 38-question survey was distributed via email to members of the Student Run Free Clinic Faculty Association (SRFCFA) in October 2021. All responses were collected electronically via Qualtrics survey software. Results: Most SRCs are held at least once weekly in variable physical locations. All SRCs surveyed use an electronic medical record. Student leadership typically rotates annually. Preceptors skew towards generalists rather than specialists. Clinics have variable patient volumes but see majority uninsured and non-English-speaking patient populations. Responses about consistency of result communication, follow-up visits, referrals to specialty care, and management of high-risk patients were mixed. The majority of respondents did not feel that learner experience was prioritized over patient care. Conclusion: The design and operations of SRCs nationwide is variable and not standardized. There remains a limited understanding of patient experiences and patient-centered outcomes at SRCs, and thus it is difficult to guide best practices. Future efforts to collect patient perspectives and outcomes should be emphasized given the vulnerable populations these clinics serve.

Identifiers

PMID38406229
PMCPMC10887400
OpenAlexW4391385117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.