Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Smartphone Apps for Preventing Adolescent Health Problems Among Health Care Professionals: Systematic Search and Quality Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals must consider multiple dimensions of prevention when consulting with adolescents. Identifying risky behaviors early in adolescence is crucial for reducing both morbidity and mortality. General practitioners are increasingly eager to incorporate digital tools for prevention into their consultations with adolescents; however, the relevance and clinical validity of these digital tools are not always established or well-known. Consequently, primary care professionals require guidance and support in selecting relevant mobile health (mHealth) tools. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify relevant and useful digital apps to help primary care professionals detect at-risk adolescents across all recommended areas of prevention: orthopedics, mental health, substance abuse, risk behaviors, sexual health, vaccinations, social relationships, and nutrition. METHODS: A systematic review of smartphone apps, with an analysis of content quality, was carried out by 4 researchers using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. The App Store and Google Play Store platforms were surveyed. The inclusion criteria were as follows: free of charge, date of last update, availability in French or English, relevance of the preventive approach to adolescents, and scientific validation. Four health care professionals assessed the apps: 2 selected the apps relevant to health care professionals, then 3 analyzed these apps using the French version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-F). Intraclass correlation coefficient, model (2,1) (2-way random effects, absolute agreement, single measures); standard error of measurement; and mean absolute error were also calculated. RESULTS: A total of 976 apps were identified, 49 of which had disappeared from the platforms prior to analysis. Nine apps were retained. Seven (0.72%) were included after evaluation using the MARS-F: 2 on mental health and 5 on sexual health (including 3 on contraception only). The mean MARS-F interrater score ranged from 2.5/5 to 3.8/5. The global MARS-F score demonstrated a pooled SD of 0.60 and an intraclass correlation coefficient (2,1) of 0.0003, resulting in a calculated standard error of measurement of 0.60. The average discrepancy between raters was a mean absolute error of 0.53. CONCLUSIONS: No similar studies have been identified in the literature that specifically focus on mobile apps designed to support health care professionals in delivering preventive care to adolescents. Of the 8 areas of prevention identified as relevant for adolescents, only 3 are addressed by the apps validated through our methodology (5 focus on sexual health). Consequently, current apps are insufficient to support health care professionals in their overall preventive work with adolescents. Such a review should be conducted systematically prior to the development of any new tool to prevent duplication and channel creative efforts toward truly innovative digital solutions. Furthermore, a thorough analysis of relevant, recommended websites is essential, as these resources complement the use of mobile apps designed for health care professionals.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Co-location of services: an umbrella review to consider how primary care estates could be better used to support disadvantaged groups.

AIM: To examine how co-located community and health services in primary care could support disadvantaged groups. BACKGROUND: Co-locating services is thought to improve access, collaboration, and patient outcomes. There are thousands of primary care premises across the UK. At a time of stagnating or widening health inequalities, they present an ideal opportunity to support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas. METHOD: We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Articles were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care between 2010 and February 2024 were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality. Outcomes relating to health, welfare, healthcare utilization, and activity and processes were assessed. Data were narratively synthesized using a convergent integrated approach. FINDINGS: 2626 studies were screened, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches. Thirteen reviews were included for synthesis. One review included meta-analysis. Three models of care were identified; legal advice, welfare advice, and complementary health care. Data were synthesized according to themes: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health, and improved social factors. We found co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment, and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and well-being outcomes were reported. Findings were inconsistent when considering the impact of co-location on efficiency. We conclude that co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to high quality health care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximize the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Clinical and Psychosocial Characteristics of Adult Primary Care IBS Patients: A Post hoc Analysis of the DOMINO Study.

BACKGROUND: The majority of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients are diagnosed and managed in primary care, but this setting is underinvestigated to date. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to improve our understanding of IBS in primary care by evaluating the clinical and psychosocial characteristics of affected patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional post hoc analysis of the DOMINO study, which enrolled 483 adult IBS patients newly diagnosed by primary care physicians. We investigated baseline demographics and questionnaires assessing Rome IV criteria and stool pattern subtype, symptom severity (IBS-SSS), quality of life (IBS-QoL), somatic symptom disorder (PHQ-12), depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7). RESULTS: 70% of the primary care diagnosed IBS patients fulfilled the Rome IV criteria (Rome+). The stool pattern subtype distribution according to the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire was: 20% constipation (IBS-C), 33% diarrhea (IBS-D), 31% mixed (IBS-M) and 16% unclassified (IBS-U). Mean IBS-SSS was 268 ± 98, with 46% and 36% of cases reporting moderate and severe IBS-SSS, respectively. Rome + patients had, compared to Rome-, a significantly higher IBS-SSS, lower quality of life and higher psychosocial comorbidity. IBS-M, IBS-D and IBS-C participants scored significantly higher on IBS-SSS and IBS-QoL than IBS-U. Furthermore, IBS-M had significantly higher somatic symptom disorder and depression and anxiety levels compared with IBS-U. CONCLUSION: The majority of primary care IBS patients fulfilled the Rome IV criteria, were subtyped as IBS-D or IBS-M and were characterised by moderate or severe IBS-SSS. Rome+ and IBS-M participants had higher symptom severity, lower quality of life and higher psychosocial comorbidity. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number NCT04270487.

Adult↗