Table_5_Identifying patients with psychosocial problems in general practice: A scoping review.docx

ObjectiveWe 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.
MethodsWe followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual 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.
ResultsOf 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.
Discussion and conclusionThis 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.

研究目的 本研究开展范围综述（scoping review），旨在全面探究全科医疗研究中已被考察的、可覆盖广泛社会心理问题（psychosocial problems, PSPs），并用于识别患者及凸显其特征的工具与方法。
研究方法 本研究遵循《系统评价与Meta分析首选报告条目-范围综述扩展版》及《乔安娜·布里格斯研究所范围综述审查员手册》开展工作。我们在4个电子数据库（MEDLINE（Ovid平台）、Web of Science核心合集、PsycInfo数据库、考克兰图书馆（Cochrane Library））中开展系统检索，纳入无时间限制的英文、西班牙文、法文及德文的定量与定性研究。本研究方案已在开放科学框架（Open Science Framework）注册，并发表于《BMJ Open》期刊。
研究结果 本次检索共识别出839篇文献，其中66篇符合研究纳入标准，从中进一步识别出61种测评工具。相关文献来自18个国家，多数研究采用观察性设计，且纳入的研究对象多为成年患者。在所有测评工具中，22种被报道已通过效度验证，本文将对其进行介绍。总体而言，各研究对质量标准的报告方式存在差异，且大多缺乏详细细节。多数测评工具以纸笔问卷的形式使用。本研究发现，社会心理问题（PSPs）的理论概念建构、定义及测量方式存在显著异质性，涵盖从精神疾病病例识别到特定社会问题的广泛范畴。
讨论与结论 本范围综述梳理了全科医疗研究领域中已被研究与应用的多种工具与方法。这些工具若结合当地实际情况、服务人群及需求进行适配与定制，或可用于日常全科医疗实践中识别存在社会心理问题（PSPs）的患者，但该应用仍需开展进一步研究。鉴于现有研究及测评工具的异质性，未来研究应同时包含对测评工具更结构化的评估，并引入共识性方法，以推动测评工具研究向日常临床实际应用转化。