Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18703659›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Self reported receipt of care consistent with 32 quality indicators: national population survey of adults aged 50 or more in England.

Nicholas Steel, Max Bachmann, Susan Maisey, Paul Shekelle, Elizabeth Breeze, Michael Marmot, David Melzer

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Low-value care in musculoskeletal health care: Is there a way forward?Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Primary care supply and quality of care in England.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicholas SteelSchool of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ. n.steel@uea.ac.uk
Max Bachmann
Susan Maisey
Paul Shekelle
Elizabeth Breeze
Michael Marmot
David Melzer
University of East Anglia · GBUniversity College London · GBPeninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry · GBRAND Corporation · US

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/07/008/23674Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0100222Medical Research Council G19/35Medical Research Council G8802774
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the receipt of effective healthcare interventions in England by adults aged 50 or more with serious health conditions.

designNational structured survey questionnaire with face to face interviews covering medical panel endorsed quality of care indicators for both publicly and privately provided care.

settingPrivate households across England.

participants8688 participants in the English longitudinal study of ageing, of whom 4417 reported diagnoses of one or more of 13 conditions.

main outcome measuresPercentage of indicated interventions received by eligible participants for 32 clinical indicators and seven questions on patient centred care, and aggregate scores.

resultsParticipants were eligible for 19 082 items of indicated care. Receipt of indicated care varied substantially by condition. The percentage of indicated care received by eligible participants was highest for ischaemic heart disease (83%, 95% confidence interval 80% to 86%), followed by hearing problems (79%, 77% to 81%), pain management (78%, 73% to 83%), diabetes (74%, 72% to 76%), smoking cessation (74%, 71% to 76%), hypertension (72%, 69% to 76%), stroke (65%, 54% to 76%), depression (64%, 57% to 70%), patient centred care (58%, 57% to 60%), poor vision (58%, 54% to 63%), osteoporosis (53%, 49% to 57%), urinary incontinence (51%, 47% to 54%), falls management (44%, 37% to 51%), osteoarthritis (29%, 26% to 32%), and overall (62%, 62% to 63%). Substantially more indicated care was received for general medical (74%, 73% to 76%) than for geriatric conditions (57%, 55% to 58%), and for conditions included in the general practice pay for performance contract (75%, 73% to 76%) than excluded from it (58%, 56% to 59%).

conclusionsShortfalls in receipt of basic recommended care by adults aged 50 or more with common health conditions in England were most noticeable in areas associated with disability and frailty, but few areas were exempt. Efforts to improve care have substantial scope to achieve better health outcomes and particularly need to include chronic conditions that affect quality of life of older people.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseDelivery of Health CareEnglandFamily PracticeHealth Services for the AgedHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID18703659
PMCPMC2515887
OpenAlexW2123223956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.