Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440849›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2024

Looking beyond effectiveness: Integration of social science research within international infectious disease research in primary care.

Sibyl Anthierens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Sibyl AnthierensDepartment of Family Medicine and Population Health, UAntwerpen, Wilrijk, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs researchers in primary care, we want to drive change in practice and conduct research that sparks meaningful transformation. These changes can only happen if our research work resonates in a meaningful way with the people who they are designed for, i.e. the healthcare professionals and the patients. VIEWPOINT: This viewpoint stems from first-hand insights gained as a social scientist engaged in trials and primary care research amidst epidemics and pandemics. Some examples stemming from the EU Funded GRACE INTRO, RECOVER and Prudence trial illustrate these experiences. I outline how primary care can effectively address the pressing challenges it encounters, whether as researchers, members of the public, or healthcare professionals, and how to integrate successfully social sciences within clinical primary care research.

conclusionAs interdisciplinary researchers, social scientists and medical researchers can work together under certain conditions, i.e. equal status, adequate resources, and seamless integration within trial structures.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareSocial SciencesBiomedical ResearchCommunicable DiseasesHumansantimicrobial stewardshipinfectious diseasesprimary carequalitative researchSocial scientiststrial design

Identifiers

PMID39440849
PMCPMC11500534

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.