ArticlePrimary health care research & development2024
Conceptualizing National Advisory Boards in primary care research: application to the Two in One HIV and COVID screening and testing model.
Article in Primary health care research & development, 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
The authors report on their development of a National Advisory Board (NAB) to guide a funded project: Two in One: HIV + COVID-19 Screening and Testing Model. This project aimed to improve primary care practitioners' capacity to routinize HIV, PrEP/PEP, and COVID-19 vaccine screenings for all their patients while relying on culturally responsive communication with their minoritized patients. To approach their monumental research and education tasks, they created a NAB, drawing from the literature on advisory boards to (a) promote board member engagement and (b) progress successfully through the six stages suggested for successful advisory boards. A midpoint survey and final focus groups with NAB members indicated mixed levels of engagement, a sense of time and work being valued, and pride in the media and academic reach of the project. The authors offer considerations for others considering forming a NAB to guide primary care research and interventions.
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.