ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Prompting Strategies for Large Language Models in Primary Care: A Primer for Clinician-Artificial Intelligence Interaction.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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
Primary care is a language-intensive environment where clinicians frequently synthesize, document, and communicate large amounts of information. Given the amount of information in primary care, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as tools to support primary care clinician workflows, aiming to reduce administrative burden and augment patient care. LLMs are artificial intelligence tools that can generate text and assist with chart summarization, message drafting, and clinical decision support. However, because LLMs are probabilistic, identical inputs may yield inconsistent responses. The LLMs output can be significantly improved through prompt engineering. Prompt engineering is the intentional design of text entered into the LLM to help produce better LLM results. Prompting is best approached as an iterative process where a clinician defines the task, the LLM generates output, and the clinician critically reviews and refines the results. Low-quality prompts are often vague and produce generic or misleading responses. High-quality prompts are specific, context-rich, and well-structured. Using structured prompting frameworks can improve the LLMs response. Including core elements, such as the LLMs role, the clinical context, the requested task, and the desired output formatting, can help improve the LLMs response by providing situational background and framing response formatting. Additional frameworks, such as Ask-Context-Expectation and PICO+O, can be utilized for specific patient circumstances and cases. However, despite their promise, LLMs have important limitations. They may generate inaccurate or hallucinated information and produce inconsistent results. Given these limitations, LLMs should not be viewed as knowledge authorities but rather as cognitive assistants. Thoughtful prompt design can help reduce these limitations and improve response accuracy, always keeping in mind that LLMs should not replace human judgment or clinical reasoning. As LLMs continue to be integrated into primary care, prompt engineering will become an increasingly important clinical skill. Careful prompt design and critical appraisal of LLM responses will be key to maintaining excellent patient care in the AI era.
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.