ArticleScandinavian journal of caring sciences2015
Patient perceptions and expectations of an anticoagulation service: a quantitative comparison study of clinic-based testers and patient self-testers.
Article in Scandinavian journal of caring sciences, 2015. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mobile three-dimensional visualisation technologies for clinician-led fall prevention assessments.Health informatics journal · 2019Article
- Fall Prevention Self-Assessments Via Mobile 3D Visualization Technologies: Community Dwelling Older Adults' Perceptions of Opportunities and Challenges.JMIR human factors · 2017Article
- Home management of INR in the public health system: feasibility of self-management of oral anticoagulation and long-term performance of individual POC devices in determining INR.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2016Article
- Patient perceptions and expectations of an anticoagulation service: a quantitative comparison study of clinic-based testers and patient self-testers.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2015Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGovernment initiatives see the provision of technology-assisted self-care as one of the key areas in which there is capacity for improving quality of care whilst reducing costs. However, levels of patient engagement in self-testing and management (STM) remain low. Little emphasis has been placed on understanding the patients' perspectives of the reasons for this limited engagement. Typically, patient engagement in STM is achieved via the provision of patient education programmes, which aim to enable patients to make the changes necessary to become competent self-carers. However, placing the onus to change on the individual patient is unrealistic. If levels of patient engagement are to be improved, patient needs and expectations of clinical services must be better understood and service provision must be adapted accordingly.
objectiveExplore patient perceptions and expectations of clinical service provision and their views of having and making choices about care.
methodsParticipants [N = 191, 103 patient self-tester managers (PSTMs) and 87 clinic-based testers (CBTs)] completed the SERVQUAL and ChQ instruments to capture perspectives on service quality and choice, respectively. A comparative statistical analysis explored the similarities and differences between PSTMs' and CBTs' responses.
resultsClinic-based testers' perceptions of service quality were significantly more positive than PSTMs', as were their expectations of the 'tangible' aspects of service delivery. PSTMs' expectations of service quality were significantly higher than their perceptions. PSTMs attributed significantly more value to making choices compared with CBTs. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: To close the gap between PSTMs expectations and perceptions of service quality and better cater for their choice preferences, service providers may benefit from taking into account the following practice considerations: maintain frequent, timely, personalised and direct interactions with PSTMs; prioritise investment in resources to facilitate patient/practitioner interaction over tangible facilities; ensure that PSTMs are given the opportunity to make choices about their care.
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.