4.6 Review

Identifying patients with psychosocial problems in general practice: a scoping review protocol

Journal

BMJ OPEN
Volume 11, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051383

Keywords

primary care; social medicine; public health; mental health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This scoping review aims to map published evidence on the usage of instruments to identify patients with PSPs in general practice, with the goal of aiding general practitioners in early intervention and prevention of serious conditions.
Introduction Psychosocial problems (PSPs) are common issues associated with negative health outcomes. Since general practitioners are the first point of contact for any health-related concern, understanding their options to recognise patients with PSPs plays an important role as it is essential for early intervention and can prevent serious conditions. The objective of our scoping review is to map published evidence on the usage of instruments to identify patients with PSPs in general practice. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual on scoping reviews. A systematic search of four electronic databases (Medline (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) will be conducted for quantitative and qualitative studies published in English, Spanish, French and German. Main study characteristics as well as information on identification instruments will be extracted and visualised in structured tables to map the available evidence. The protocol has been registered with Open Science Framework, https://osfio/c2m6z. Ethics and dissemination This study does not require ethical approval as we will not collect personal data. Dissemination will consist of publications, presentations and other knowledge translation activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available