ArticleJRSM short reports2013
Integrating specialist advice following reforms: an interview-based survey.
Article in JRSM short reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers and facilitators to integrating primary and specialist healthcare in the United Kingdom: a narrative literature review.Future healthcare journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the importance of incorporating secondary care input to aid commissioning following National Health Service reforms which will see the replacement of Primary Care Trusts with Clinical Commissioning Groups; to determine barriers that might arise given that this issue had been raised during public consultations and to explore ways to improve this input.
designQualitative project with semistructured one-to-one interviews which were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic content analysis by two investigators. The findings were discussed and organized into a framework.
settingBradford and Airedale, UK.
participantsWe interviewed 19 participants from primary care, the medical directorship and a range of specialties.
main outcome measuresOne-to-one semistructured interviews allowed a flexible dialogue to discuss planned questions and any other themes which participants brought up. This elicited a variety of experiences and ideas which provided the basis for in depth theoretical analysis required for our objectives.
resultsThere was an almost universal agreement that the integration of secondary care advice is important in commissioning. The main perceived barriers were obstacles to good communication and relationships, conflicts of interest and financial pressures. Participants suggested varied and innovative ways to improve communication and integration, and suggestions for organisations.
conclusionsOur results support the importance of secondary care input and highlight communication, organisation and integration as three goals for organisations to work towards. Successful achievement of these objectives could have financial implications for organisations as well as benefits for patient care.
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.