ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015
Care planning for long-term conditions – a concept mapping.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Re-Routing Infliximab Therapy: Subcutaneous Infliximab Opens a Path Towards Greater Convenience and Clinical Benefit.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Review
- Developing priorities to achieve health equity through diabetes translation research: a concept mapping study.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2019Article
- Care planning for consumers on community treatment orders: an integrative literature review.BMC psychiatry · 2016Review
- Delivering person-centred care in long-term conditions.Future hospital journal · 2016Article
- A 'combined framework' approach to developing a patient decision aid: the PANDAs model.BMC health services research · 2014Article
- Looking after yourself: Clinical understandings of chronic-care self-management strategies in rural and urban contexts of the United Kingdom and Australia.SAGE open medicine · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis article focuses on approaches within clinical practice that seek to actively involve patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) and how professionals may understand and implement them. Personalized care planning is one such approach, but its current lack of conceptual clarity might have impeded its widespread implementation to date. A variety of overlapping concepts coexist in the literature, which have the potential to impair both clinical and research agendas. The aim of this article is therefore to explore the meaning of the concept of care planning in relation to other overlapping concepts and how this translates into clinical practice implementation.
methodsSearches were conducted in the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, CINHAL and MEDLINE. A staged approach to conducting the concept mapping was undertaken, by (i) an examination of the literature on care planning in LTCs; (ii) identification of related terms; (iii) locating reviews of those terms. Retrieved articles were subjected to a content analysis, which formed the basis of our concept maps. (iv) We then appraised these against knowledge and experience of the implementation of care planning in clinical practice. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThirteen articles were retrieved, in which the core importance of patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management was highlighted. Literature searches on these terms retrieved a further 24 articles. Our concept mapping exercise shows that whilst there are common themes across the concepts, the differences between them reflect the context and intended outcomes within clinical practice. We argue that this clarification exercise will allow for further development of both research and clinical implementation agendas.
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.