Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42102717›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine2026

Yesterday's Patterns, Tomorrow's Possibilities: Historical Methods in Family Medicine.

Lucy Vorobej, Cynthia Whitehead

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine, 2026. 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. The academy and its journal: 45 years of editorial leadership in South African family medicine.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Lucy VorobejThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cynthia WhiteheadThe Wilson Centre, University Health Network and Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historical perspectives remain an underused resource in family medicine research, despite their capacity to explain the development of current challenges and the persistence of certain assumptions in family medicine education. Consequently, many scholars have had little opportunity to engage with historical approaches or the questions they invite. This gap is notable at a time when concern about the family medicine workforce and the effectiveness of educational reform have prompted renewed attention to how the discipline prepares and inspires future practitioners. This manuscript introduces the potential of historical inquiry within family medicine education research and invites readers to consider how a historical lens can expand the ways researchers frame and investigate problems in the field. Although educational strategies are often presented as novel responses to current pressures, many have deeper roots that become visible only when viewed across longer periods. To demonstrate how historians interpret scholarship, context, and sources to construct an account of change over time, we draw on our examination of the Canadian Family Physician journal from 1967 to 2000. The example is intended to clarify methodological principles rather than to present findings. By outlining how historical inquiry operates in practice, this paper gives researchers a starting point for bringing historical perspectives into their own studies and for opening lines of inquiry that fall outside the reach of contemporary data.

Indexed as

Family PracticeCanadaHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumans

Identifiers

PMID42102717
PMCPMC12969571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.