ArticleBMC primary care2026
The perceptions of Dutch general practitioners on the implementation of a proactive integrated care approach for patients with complex needs: a pilot survey.
Article in BMC primary care, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor a subgroup of patients with complex health needs on multiple domains (somatic, mental and/or social) often accompanied with disproportional healthcare use, a new proactive and integrated care (PIC) approach is being developed in the primary care setting to stimulate health improvement among these patients. To ensure sustainable implementation of the PIC approach it is important to study factors influencing the initial uptake of the intervention prior to actual implementation. This Pilot survey explores whether general practitioners (GPs) recognize patients with complex needs, understand their needs, and how they perceive the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the PIC approach.
methodsFor this pilot survey, a convenience sample of GPs was recruited in the regions of Utrecht and The Hague in the Netherlands. They completed a questionnaire assessing their recognition and awareness of these patients’ needs, and their views on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the PIC approach.
resultsIn total 22 GP filled in the survey. Most GPs (90.90%) recognize patients with complex needs as a patient group, yet only 42.90% report awareness of their needs. Furthermore, 80.90% agree that care change is needed. While only 4.50% of GPs find the PIC approach to be unacceptable, a larger portion express doubts about its appropriateness (22.70%) and feasibility (22.70%).
conclusionsAs an exploratory pilot survey, these findings offer initial indicators that while GPs acknowledge patients with complex needs and support care change, further research is needed to confirm the appropriateness and feasibility of the PIC approach.
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.