ArticleBMJ open2024
Identifying carers in general practice (STATUS QUO): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Does the Informal Carer Identification Method Matter? Evidence from Self-Declaration and Time Diary Approaches.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Case-finding for depression in primary care (CAIRO): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.BMJ open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine General Practice (GP) recording of carer status and the number of patients self-identifying as carers, while self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to a GP consultation.
designA descriptive cross-sectional study.
setting11 GPs in the West Midlands, England. Recruitment commenced in September 2019 and concluded in January 2020.
participantsAll patients aged 10 years and over, self-completing an automated check-in screen, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The current coding of carers at participating GPs and the number of patients identifying themselves as a carer were primary outcome measures. Secondary outcome measures included the number of responses attained from automated check-in screens as a research data collection tool and whether carers felt supported in their carer role.
results80.3% (n=9301) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in QUantifying the identification Of carers in general practice (STATUS QUO Study) (62.6% (n=5822) female, mean age 52.9 years (10-98 years, SD=20.3)). Prior to recruitment, the clinical code used to denote a carer was identified in 2.7% (n=2739) of medical records across the participating GPs.10.1% (n=936) of participants identified themselves as a carer. They reported feeling supported with their own health and social care needs: always 19.3% (n=150), a lot of the time 13.2% (n=102), some of the time 40.8% (n=317) and never 26.7% (n=207).
conclusionsMany more participants self-identified as a carer than were recorded on participating GP lists. Improvements in the recording of the population's caring status need to be actioned, to ensure that supportive implementation strategies for carers are effectively received. Using automated check-in facilities for research continues to provide high participation rates.
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.