ArticleBMC primary care2025
General practitioners' involvement in inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany: a scoping review.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. 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
backgroundThe German rehabilitation system has some peculiar features, such as the predominance of inpatient medical rehabilitation. Most patients receive inpatient rehabilitation due to chronic illnesses like chronic backpain or psychosomatic diseases. General practitioners play a special role in the German healthcare system as they are often the first point of contact for health issues. The study aims to provide an overview of the involvement of general practitioners in inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany as well as identifying barriers and facilitators. By doing this, a basis for optimizing general practitioners' involvement can be generated.
methodsA scoping review was conducted to ascertain the current state of scientific knowledge, employing the methodological approach of the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search was carried out between February and March 2024. Eight databases were screened: PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, PubPsych, EBSCOhost, BeLit, LIVIVO, ProQuest, and German National Library. Publications in German and English in the publication period from 1980 to February 2024 were sought. A thematic analysis was conducted to evaluate the included publications. The research process and generation of findings were recorded utilizing the PRISMA-ScR checklist.
resultsThe search resulted in a total of 2231 records, of which 102 were screened on a full text level. Fifty-four publications were included in the review. Following the thematic analysis, fourteen themes were identified and assigned to four topic areas. In the area of access, general practitioners take on a gatekeeper function (addressed by 10 publications) among other things. In follow-up care, there is involvement in prescription (5 publications), like referral to outpatient medical specialists. Barriers to involvement relate, for example, to a lack of knowledge on the part of general practitioners (10 publications) and facilitators include education and training (10 publications).
conclusionsThe results confirm the important role of general practitioners in providing access to inpatient medical rehabilitation in Germany and follow-up care. However, various barriers for general practitioners' involvement were revealed. In order to maintain and optimize the involvement, further scientific research and efforts based on this in practice are necessary, involving relevant stakeholders.
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.