ArticleBMJ open2025
Collaboration between ambulance services and primary care: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Geographic distribution of EMS missions and patient conditions in suburban and rural Sweden: a retrospective observational study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Ambulance clinicians' perspectives on interprofessional collaboration in prehospital emergency care for older patients with complex care needs: a mixed-methods study.BMC geriatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaking decisions about the appropriate level of care is a significant challenge for healthcare professionals, especially when older patients present with diffuse symptoms. Collaboration between ambulance services and primary care may promote a comprehensive understanding of patient needs. However, such collaboration remains limited, potentially leading to lower care quality and higher costs. There is a need to understand how collaboration can be effectively implemented. This scoping review aims to explore existing models of collaboration between ambulance services and primary care, identifying their characteristics, outcomes and current research gaps. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, supplemented with recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute Handbook for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive literature search will be conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus. In addition, Google Scholar, Overton, SwePub and the Swedish national library database Libris will be searched for relevant grey literature. The review will include studies published from January 2014 to the present. Data will be analysed descriptively, with findings categorised by collaboration models and patterns identified through inductive analysis to address the research questions. The review will apply the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews to present the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review is the first stage of an overarching research study to develop a model for extended collaboration between ambulance services and primary care (the ECAP project). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and sharing with ambulance services and primary care stakeholders to inform practice and policy. This scoping review protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nrkm5/). No participants will be involved at this stage, and the selected literature is publicly available, so no ethical approval will be required for this scoping review.
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.