ArticleAtencion primaria2006
[Problems and solutions in health care for chronic diseases. A qualitative study with patients and doctors].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of a gamified website to increase pain neurophysiology knowledge and improve satisfaction and motivation among students studying for a degree in physiotherapy: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- [Conceptuation on fibromyalgia: consensus or discrepancy among healthcare providers from Spain?]Revista espanola de salud publica · 2020Article
- Patient participation in the discussions of options in Spanish primary care consultations.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
- [Patient involvement in decision making in primary care clinics: development of a measuring tool].Atencion primaria · 2010Article
- Patients' and professionals' views on managing fibromyalgia.Pain research & managementArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic diseases represent a challenge for health systems and the professionals most involved in chronic care. Despite biomedical advances, the results of care for chronic problems are not as good as they should be.
objectiveTo find out what doctors and patients think of care for some of the main chronic illnesses; to detect concrete areas of deficit and lack of satisfaction felt by both sides and possible lines of improvement; to raise mutual understanding between patients and doctors.
participantsForty-one patients with fibromyalgia or diabetes mellitus, carers for people with Alzheimer's and breast cancer patients. Forty-three family doctors involved in health care delivery to this kind of patient.
methodsFour discussion groups. Transcription and syntactical, semantic and pragmatic contents analysis, with both pre-established and emerging categories of consensus.
resultsPatients thought, with different nuances as a function of the problem put forward, that questions of respectful, human and integrated care, clear and suitable information, and consistent follow-up were important and insufficiently covered by doctors and health services. Doctors thought that many of their efforts in caring for these patients were useless, and thought it important to reconsider their clinical responsibilities and the patient-doctor relationship. Doctors highlighted the limitations in the health care resources available for working with these patients.
conclusionsTo tackle prevalent chronic problems requires, in the view of doctors and patients, important modifications that are related mainly to the kind of relationship between the two, with new clinical responsibilities and certain organisational care delivery features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.