ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2026
Predicting risk of psychosis in primary care: a qualitative study.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundP Risk is a new tool that aims to help GPs identify people who are at risk of developing psychosis. It uses electronic health record data on non-psychotic symptoms, medications, and sociodemographic factors.
aimTo explore clinicians' and patients' views of the acceptability and usefulness of using P Risk in primary care for identifying people at risk of developing psychosis. DESIGN &
settingQualitative study using semi-structured interviews conducted with GPs, early intervention (EI) team clinicians, and patients between May and December 2023.
methodParticipants were recruited from Bristol and London, and three topic guides were developed to ensure consistency across interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.
resultsA total of 10 GPs, six EI clinicians, and 13 patients were interviewed. Most clinicians and patients welcomed the development of P Risk as a tool for improving the identification of people at risk of developing psychosis; however, some clinicians raised concerns about the quality of clinician coding in primary care medical records, availability of effective treatments, limited capacity of EI teams to work with people at risk, increased workload for GPs, and the negative impact on patients from being told about their risk of developing psychosis. For patients, identifying people at risk only made sense if treatment for them would be available. Interviewees said that clinicians should explain to patients what psychosis is, what it means to be at risk, which factors drive the risk, and how to address those factors.
conclusionAlthough most clinicians and patients welcomed the development of P Risk, there needs to be a clear pathway for assessing patients and offering treatment to those who are identified as being at risk of developing psychosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.