Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40291057›Full record

ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2025

"The future": Interpretative phenomenological analysis of general practitioners' experiences of co-employed clinical psychologists.

Katie Monnickendam, Peter Keohane, Rebecca Magill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Katie MonnickendamAneurin Bevan University Health Board Caerphilly UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0510-7109
Peter KeohaneUniversity of Plymouth Plymouth UK.
Rebecca MagillFaculty of Health University of Plymouth Plymouth UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: General practice is overwhelmed and understaffed. New models and modalities must be considered from the front door of healthcare. Like general practitioners (GPs), clinical psychologists are qualified to work across the age range and transdiagnostically. Aim: To explore GPs' understanding of the role of a clinical psychologist and to examine what is helpful and unhelpful for GPs about working alongside a clinical psychologist within general practice. Design and Setting: This research took place within a primary care general practice in the United Kingdom. Method: Seven qualified GPs were recruited as participants using a purposive sampling method. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyze participant's experiences of working alongside clinical psychologists. Results: Three superordinate themes and 12 subordinate themes were identified. First, GP clinical psychologists support patients directly by providing preventative care, reducing stigma, and offering a different perspective. Second, they support GP well-being and contribute to emotional and behavioral changes in staff. Third, they help to alleviate pressures on wider systems, ease navigation of external services, challenge dominant systems within healthcare, and support community interventions. Conclusion: GP clinical psychologists impact general practice in multiple ways: indirectly through patient care, by GPs themselves, and by addressing wider systems. Future research is encouraged to explore the perspectives of other staff members and patient's experiences.

Indexed as

clinical psychologistgeneral practiceinterpretative phenomenological analysisprimary healthcare

Identifiers

PMID40291057
PMCPMC12022423

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.