Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25900465›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Health professionals' and service users' perspectives of shared care for monitoring wet age-related macular degeneration: a qualitative study alongside the ECHoES trial.

D Townsend, B C Reeves, J Taylor, U Chakravarthy, D O'Reilly, R E Hogg, N Mills

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  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
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

D TownsendSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
B C ReevesSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK.
J TaylorSchool of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK.
U ChakravarthyCentre for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Clinical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
D O'ReillyCentre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
R E HoggCentre for Experimental Medicine, Institute of Clinical Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
N MillsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Queen's University Belfast · GBBristol Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/129/195Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the views of eye health professionals and service users on shared community and hospital care for wet or neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

methodUsing maximum variation sampling, 5 focus groups and 10 interviews were conducted with 23 service users and 24 eye health professionals from across the UK (consisting of 8 optometrists, 6 ophthalmologists, 6 commissioners, 2 public health representatives and 2 clinical eye care advisors to local Clinical Commissioning Groups). Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques derived from grounded theory methodology.

resultsThe needs and preferences of those with nAMD appear to be at odds with the current service being provided. There was enthusiasm among health professionals and service users about the possibility of shared care for nAMD as it was felt to have the potential to relieve hospital eye service burden and represent a more patient-centred option, but there were a number of perceived barriers to implementation. Some service users and ophthalmologists voiced concerns about optometrist competency and the potential for delays with referrals to secondary care if stable nAMD became active again. The health professionals were divided as to whether shared care was financially more efficient than the current model of care. Specialist training for optometrists, under the supervision of ophthalmologists, was deemed to be the most effective method of training and was perceived to have the potential to improve the communication and trust that shared care would require.

conclusionsWhile shared care is perceived to represent a promising model of nAMD care, voiced concerns suggest that there would need to be greater collaboration between ophthalmology and optometry, in terms of interprofessional trust and communication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07479761.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPatient SatisfactionAdultCommunity Health ServicesFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansMaleMiddle AgedOptometryProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchUnited KingdomWet Macular DegenerationOPHTHALMOLOGYQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID25900465
PMCPMC4410127
OpenAlexW2101136555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.