Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19351407›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2009

Transition of care: experiences and preferences of patients across the primary/secondary interface - a qualitative study.

Annette J Berendsen, G Majella de Jong, Betty Meyboom-de Jong, Janny H Dekker, Jan Schuling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Patient-Held Active Record of Medication Status (PHARMS) study: a mixed-methods feasibility analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Annette J BerendsenDepartment of General Practice, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Ant. Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, the Netherlands. a.j.berendsen@med.umcg.nl
G Majella de Jong
Betty Meyboom-de Jong
Janny H Dekker
Jan Schuling

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoordination between care providers of different disciplines is essential to improve the quality of care, in particular for patients with chronic diseases. The way in which general practitioners (GP's) and medical specialists interact has important implications for any healthcare system in which the GP plays the role of gatekeeper to specialist care. Patient experiences and preferences have proven to be increasingly important in discussing healthcare policy. The Dutch government initiated the development of a special website with information for patients on performance indicators of hospitals as well as information on illness or treatment.In the present study we focus on the transition of care at the primary - secondary interface with reference to the impact of patients' ability to make choices about their secondary care providers. The purpose of this study is to (a) explore experiences and preferences of patients regarding the transition between primary and secondary care, (b) study informational resources on illness/treatment desired by patients and (c) determine how information supplied could make it easier for the patient to choose between different options for care (hospital or specialist).

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus group interviews among 71 patients referred for various indications in the north and west of The Netherlands.

resultsPatients find it important that they do not have to wait, that they are taken seriously, and receive adequate and individually relevant information. A lack of continuity from secondary to primary care was experienced. The patient's desire for free choice of type of care did not arise in any of the focus groups.

conclusionHospital discharge information needs to be improved. The interval between discharge from specialist care and the report of the specialist to the GP might be a suitable performance indicator in healthcare. Patients want to receive information, tailored to their own situation. The need for information, however, is quite variable. Patients do not feel strongly about self-chosen healthcare, contrary to what administrators presently believe.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareInformation ServicesPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInternetMaleMedicineMiddle AgedNetherlandsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID19351407
PMCPMC2674593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.