Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39906064›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025

Integrating general practitioners' and patients' perspectives in the development of a digital tool supporting primary care for older patients with multimorbidity: a focus group study.

Ingmar Schäfer, Vivienne Jahns, Valentina Paucke, Dagmar Lühmann, Martin Scherer, Julia Nothacker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Ingmar SchäferDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Vivienne JahnsDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Valentina PauckeDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Dagmar LühmannDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Julia NothackerDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The web application gp-multitool.de is based on the German clinical practice guideline "multimorbidity" and supports mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs (general practitioners) and patients. The application facilitates sending hyperlinks to standardized assessments by email, which can be completed by patients on any suitable digital device. GPs can document clinical decisions. The tool also supports a structured medication review. Aims of this study were to consider needs and wants of the target groups in implementing the "multimorbidity" clinical practice guideline in a digital tool, and to examine themes of discussions in order to identify which aspects were considered most important for customising a digital tool. Materials and methods: We conducted six focus groups with 32 GPs and six focus groups with 33 patients. Eight groups were conducted alongside the programming of the web application and four after finishing a prototype. GPs were recruited by mail and asked to invite up to six eligible patients from their practice to participate. Focus groups were based on semi-structured interview guides and discussed assessments, functionalities, usability and reliability of gp-multitool.de. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Results: GPs wanted to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming functions and did not want to explore problems that they could not provide solutions for. For some assessments, GPs suggested simplifying scales or including residual categories. GPs and patients also addressed possible misunderstandings due to wording and discussed if some items might be too intimate or overtax patients intellectually. In most cases, participants confirmed usability, but they suggested changes in default settings and pointed out a few minor bugs that needed to be fixed. While some GPs considered data security an important topic, most patients were unconcerned with this issue and open to share their data. Conclusion: Our study indicates that focus groups can be used to customize a digital tool according to the needs and wants of target groups and thus, improve content, functionality, usability, and reliability of digital tools. However, digital tools still need to be piloted and evaluated in everyday care. In our focus groups, study participants confirmed that gp-multitool.de can be a relevant approach for overcoming deficits in the information needed for mutual prioritisation of treatments by GPs and patients.

Indexed as

chronic diseasesclinical practice guidelinesdigitalisationmultimorbidityshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID39906064
PMCPMC11790651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.