Observational studyBMJ open2014
Clinical questions raised by providers in the care of older adults: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prescriber-Initiated Engagement of Pharmacists for Information and Intervention in Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Norwegian drug information centres strongly promote person-centred and personalised medicine: a brief report on the achievements and strategy.The EPMA journal · 2019Review
- Exploring patient information needs in type 2 diabetes: A cross sectional study of questions.PloS one · 2018Article
- Clinical Questions Asked by Long-Term Care Providers Through eConsult: A Retrospective Study.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise clinical questions raised by providers in the care of complex older adults in order to guide the design of interventions that can help providers answer these questions. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo elicit clinical questions, we observed and audio recorded outpatient visits at three healthcare organisations. At the end of each appointment, providers were asked to identify clinical questions raised in the visit. Providers rated their questions based on their urgency, importance to the patient's care and difficulty in finding a useful answer to. Transcripts of the audio recordings were analysed to identify ageing-specific factors that may have contributed to the nature of the questions.
resultsWe observed 36 patient visits with 10 providers at the three study sites. Providers raised 70 clinical questions (median of 2 clinical questions per patient seen; range 0-12), pursued 50 (71%) and successfully answered 34 (68%) of the questions they pursued. Overall, 36 (51%) of providers' questions were not answered. Over one-third of the questions were about treatment alternatives and adverse effects. All but two clinical questions were motivated either directly or indirectly by issues related to ageing, such as the normal physiological changes of ageing and diseases with higher prevalence in the elderly.
conclusionsThe frequency of clinical questions was higher than in previous studies conducted in general primary care patient populations. Clinical questions were predominantly influenced by ageing-related issues. We propose a series of recommendations that may be used to guide the design of solutions to help providers answer their clinical questions in the care of older adults.
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.