Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41462240›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2025

Exploring the future of the diagnostic process in primary care : The value of making contradictions explicit using change lab methodology with healthcare professionals and patients.

Esmée W P Vaes, Esther de Groot, Siamack Sabrkhany, Ton Bruining, Jochen W L Cals, Dorien Zwart, Alma C van de Pol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Esmée W P VaesJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Esther de GrootJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Siamack SabrkhanyDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ton BruiningTon Bruining Onderwijsimpuls, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Dorien ZwartJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alma C van de PolJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. a.c.vandepol-11@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past years many innovations are being developed aiming to improve diagnostic processes in primary care. Limited evidence is available on how those actually involved in those processes, in short-hand end-users (patients, general practitioners, and medical specialists such as radiologists), view innovation of the diagnostic process in primary care. Perspectives from end-users are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of initiatives designed to improve the diagnostic process. Therefore, end-users explored directions and opportunities for the primary care diagnostic process, facilitated by change laboratory methodology in which tensions and differences of insight are used as source of inspiration and learning.

methodsDirections and opportunities were explored in two study groups comprising nine and ten participants respectively (consisting of patients, general practitioners, and medical specialists) that both had four change lab sessions in a four-month period. In the analysis, the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory was used as theoretical framework. This theory helps to reveal the operation of different healthcare systems in which participants find themselves and associated tensions and contradictions, creating new directions for thinking, learning, and acting from and with one another.

resultsTogether with the participants, we identified tensions and contradictions operating within and between different activity systems relevant for diagnostic processes in primary care, like tensions that could arise which arise when more and faster diagnostics are available in primary care or when collaborating parties have other interests and motivations in innovations. By recognizing these tensions and contradictions, participants have formulated innovation directions and opportunities for the diagnostic process in primary care. End-users perceived a need for better exchange of and/or access to test results done in hospital to general practitioners, and they identified certain artificial intelligence imaging techniques as promising to improve the diagnostic process for acute complaints at the point-of-care. Delving into these directions and opportunities for adjusting and advancing the diagnostic process, we formulated criteria to be considered for identifying fruitful innovation projects.

conclusionsBy discussing tensions and contradictions between systems new considerations for successful innovation of the diagnostic process were identified and criteria were formulated which increase the likelihood of delivering promising innovation projects.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansChange laboratoryDiagnostic processHealthcare systemsInnovationPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID41462240
PMCPMC12859913

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.