Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24118821›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

Supporting a person-centred approach in clinical guidelines. A position paper of the Allied Health Community - Guidelines International Network (G-I-N).

Simone A van Dulmen, Sue Lukersmith, Josephine Muxlow, Elaine Santa Mina, Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Philip J van der Wees, G-I-N Allied Health Steering Group

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  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. Review
  20. Assessing subjective quality of life domains after multiple sclerosis diagnosis disclosure.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2016
    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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Simone A van DulmenRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Sue LukersmithLukersmith & Assoc. Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Josephine MuxlowDalhousie School of Nursing, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Elaine Santa MinaDaphne Cockwell School of Nursing, Ryerson University Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maria W G Nijhuis-van der SandenRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Philip J van der WeesRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
G-I-N Allied Health Steering Group
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLAdvanced Medical Institute (Australia) · AUDalhousie University · CAToronto Metropolitan University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA person-centred approach in the context of health services delivery implies a biopsychosocial model focusing on all factors that influence the person's health and functioning. Those wishing to monitor change should consider this perspective when they develop and use guidelines to stimulate active consideration of the person's needs, preferences and participation in goal setting, intervention selection and the use of appropriate outcome measures.

objectiveTo develop a position paper that promotes a person-centred approach in guideline development and implementation. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsWe used three narrative discussion formats to collect data for achieving consensus: a nominal group technique for the Allied Health Steering Group, an Internet discussion board and a workshop at the annual G-I-N conference. We analysed the data for relevant themes to draft recommendations.

resultsWe built the position paper on the values of the biopsychosocial model. Four key themes for enhancing a person-centred approach in clinical guidelines emerged: (i) use a joint definition of health-related quality of life as an essential component of intervention goals, (ii) incorporate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for considering all domains related to health, (iii) adopt a shared decision-making method, and (iv) incorporate patient-reported health outcome measures. The position statement includes 14 recommendations for guideline developers, implementers and users.

conclusionThis position paper describes essential elements for incorporating a person-centred approach in clinical guidelines. The consensus process provided information about barriers and facilitators that might help us develop strategies for implementing person-centred care.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePractice Guidelines as TopicAllied Health PersonnelDecision MakingHumansInternationalityModels, PsychologicalOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality of Lifeguidelineshealth-related quality of lifeInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and Healthpatient-centred careshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID24118821
PMCPMC5060835
OpenAlexW2042941024

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.