ReviewCureus2025
Patient and Physician Narratives on Collaborative Care Between Emergency and Family Medicine Services: A Narrative Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration between emergency medicine (EM) and family medicine (FM) is essential to ensure continuity, quality, and safety of patient care. While much has been written about system-level integration, fewer studies have focused on the lived experiences and narratives of patients and physicians navigating care transitions between these services. This narrative review synthesizes qualitative and mixed-method studies that explore the perspectives of both physicians and patients on collaborative care between EM and FM. A thematic analysis of selected literature reveals recurring themes of communication challenges, role ambiguity, care fragmentation, and emotional burden. While some narratives highlight positive, coordinated experiences, others describe systemic barriers that compromise patient outcomes and satisfaction. Gaps in the literature include limited patient voices and a lack of longitudinal perspectives. This review underscores the need for more inclusive, story-driven research to inform collaborative practice models that are both clinically effective and experientially meaningful.
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.