ArticleBMC primary care2025
Collaboration between general practitioners and psychiatrists via digital platforms in the Netherlands: advantages and specific limiting factors.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. 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
purposeDutch secondary psychiatric care tends to have long referral times. Accessible consultation between general practitioners (GPs) and specialists can reduce unnecessary referrals and treatment delays. This study aims to gauge the opinions of GPs on consultation regarding psychiatric cases through the e-consultation-platform Prisma.
methodsDutch GPs with access to the physician-to-physician e-consultation platform called Prisma were invited through purposive sampling. Both active and passive users were included, some of whom had requested specialist consultation on psychiatric queries. Audio recordings of the semi-structured interviews with the GPs were transcribed and coded axially by two researchers working independently, before re-analyzing both coded texts and combining them into one definitive codebook. Between December 14th, 2020, and March 16th, 2021, interviews were held until data saturation was reached.
resultsGPs tended not to consider the Prisma platform as suited for most psychiatric queries, citing the general complexity and nuance of psychiatric cases and the decentralized nature of the platform as reasons, among others. They did recognise added value in using Prisma for concrete mental health-related questions, mostly regarding medication or specific referrals.
conclusionsGPs are overall positive about interdisciplinary e-consultation with specialists using Prisma. However, they tend to use it more for somatic cases rather than psychiatric cases. The specific psychiatric cases that GPs liked to use the e-consultation tool for were specific questions about pharmaceutical management and special referrals.
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.