Schwenker Rosemarie, Deutsch Tobias, Unverzagt Susanne, Frese Thomas
Center for Health Sciences, Institute of General Practice, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Department of General Practice, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Feb 8;9:1010001. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1010001. eCollection 2022.
We conducted a scoping review with the aim of comprehensively investigating what tools or methods have been examined in general practice research that capture a wide range of psychosocial problems (PSPs) and serve to identify patients and highlight their characteristics.
We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and the on scoping reviews. A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases (Medline [Ovid], Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library) for quantitative and qualitative studies in English, Spanish, French, and German with no time limit. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework and published in BMJ Open.
Of the 839 articles identified, 66 met the criteria for study eligibility, from which 61 instruments were identified. The publications were from 18 different countries, with most studies employing an observational design and including mostly adult patients. Among all instruments, 22 were reported as validated, which we present in this paper. Overall, quality criteria were reported differently, with studies generally providing little detail. Most of the instruments were used as paper and pencil questionnaires. We found considerable heterogeneity in the theoretical conceptualisation, definition, and measurement of PSPs, ranging from psychiatric case findings to specific social problems.
This review presents a number of tools and methods that have been studied and used in general practice research. Adapted and tailored to local circumstances, practice populations, and needs, they could be useful for identifying patients with PSPs in daily GP practice; however, this requires further research. Given the heterogeneity of studies and instruments, future research efforts should include both a more structured evaluation of instruments and the incorporation of consensus methods to move forward from instrument research to actual use in daily practice.
我们进行了一项范围综述，旨在全面调查在全科医学研究中已被检验的、能够涵盖广泛心理社会问题（PSP）并用于识别患者及突出其特征的工具或方法。
我们遵循系统评价与Meta分析扩展版的首选报告项目（PRISMA-ScR）及范围综述的相关指南。在四个电子数据库（Medline [Ovid]、科学网核心合集、PsycInfo、Cochrane图书馆）中进行了系统检索，纳入无时间限制的英文、西班牙文、法文和德文的定量及定性研究。该方案已在开放科学框架注册并发表于《英国医学杂志·开放》。
在识别出的839篇文章中，66篇符合研究纳入标准，从中确定了61种工具。这些出版物来自18个不同国家，大多数研究采用观察性设计，且大多纳入成年患者。在所有工具中，22种被报告为经过验证，我们在本文中予以呈现。总体而言，质量标准的报告方式各异，研究通常提供的细节很少。大多数工具被用作纸笔问卷。我们发现，从精神病例发现到特定社会问题，PSP的理论概念化、定义和测量存在相当大的异质性。
本综述介绍了一些在全科医学研究中已被研究和使用的工具和方法。根据当地情况、实践人群和需求进行调整和定制后，它们可能有助于在日常全科医疗实践中识别患有PSP的患者；然而，这需要进一步研究。鉴于研究和工具的异质性，未来的研究工作应包括对工具进行更结构化的评估，并纳入共识方法，以从工具研究推进到在日常实践中的实际应用。
