ArticleFamily practice2026
Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review.
Article in Family practice, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic problem lists (PLs) are central to the problem-oriented medical record and increasingly underpin clinical decision support (CDS), interoperability, and emerging artificial intelligence applications in primary care. However, persistent concerns regarding PL accuracy, completeness, and governance limit their clinical value.
objectiveTo update the foundational framework proposed by Hodge and Narus by synthesizing contemporary evidence on electronic PLs in primary care and primary care-relevant settings.
methodsWe conducted a rapid scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute guidance and PRISMA-ScR reporting standards. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched for peer-reviewed studies published between March 2016 and May 2026. Eligible studies examined digital PLs or extractable PL-related practices relevant to primary care. Findings were synthesized using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach and mapped to the seven Hodge and Narus themes.
resultsA total of 103 studies were included. Across settings, PLs were widely recognized as foundational for longitudinal care, safety, and coordination. However, incomplete, outdated, or inconsistently maintained PLs remained common. Persistent challenges included unclear ownership, workflow misalignment, and variability in what constitutes a "problem." Emerging technologies-including CDS, natural language processing, and machine learning-were increasingly used to support PL generation, curation, reconciliation, and organization, with greatest benefit when embedded within clinician-led workflows.
conclusionDespite technological advances, the clinical value of electronic PLs in primary care continues to depend on governance, workflow integration, and shared accountability. Updating the Hodge and Narus framework highlights the need for sociotechnical approaches to PL improvement as PLs become integral to CDS and artificial intelligence-enabled care.
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.