Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26162086›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Self-Management and Self-Management Support Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Mixed Research Synthesis of Stakeholder Views.

Emma Boger, Jaimie Ellis, Sue Latter, Claire Foster, Anne Kennedy, Fiona Jones, Vicky Fenerty, Ian Kellar, Sara Demain

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Theory-Based Self-Management Interventions for Community-Dwelling Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Evaluating a digital tool for supporting people affected by breast cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial-the ADAPT study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Emma BogerFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Jaimie EllisFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Sue LatterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Claire FosterFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Anne KennedyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Fiona JonesDepartment of Social Care and Education, St George's and Kingston University of London, London United Kingdom.
Vicky FenertyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Ian KellarInstitute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Sara DemainFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2011-04-016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSelf-management has received growing attention as an effective approach for long-term condition management. Little is known about which outcomes of supported self-management are valued by patients, their families, health professionals and those who commission self-management services. This study systematically reviewed published empirical evidence in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to determine the outcomes of self-management valued by these key stakeholder groups, using three prominent exemplar conditions: colorectal cancer, diabetes and stroke.

aimTo systematically review the literature to identify which generic outcomes of self-management have been targeted and are considered important using three exemplar conditions (colorectal cancer, diabetes and stroke), which collectively have a range of features that are likely to be representative of generic self-management issues.

methodsSystematic searching of nine electronic databases was conducted in addition to hand searches of review articles. Abstracts were identified against inclusion criteria and appraised independently by two reviewers, using a critical appraisal tool. Synthesis of findings was conducted using mixed research synthesis.

resultsOver 20,536 abstracts were screened. 41 studies which met the review criteria were fully retrieved and appraised. The majority of evidence related to diabetes. Few studies directly focussed on stakeholders' views concerning desired self-management outcomes; the majority of evidence was derived from studies focusing upon the experience of self-management. The views of health care commissioners were absent from the literature. We identified that self-management outcomes embrace a range of indicators, from knowledge, skills, and bio-psychosocial markers of health through to positive social networks.

conclusionsPatients', families', health professionals' and commissioners' views regarding which outcomes of self-management are important have not been clearly elicited. The extent to which bio-psychosocial indicators relate to successful self-management from the perspectives of all groups of stakeholders is unknown. Further investigation regarding which self-management outcomes are considered important by all stakeholders is necessary to guide the commissioning and design of future self-management services.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDiabetes MellitusFamilyFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMaleOutcome Assessment, Health CareSelf CareStroke

Identifiers

PMID26162086
PMCPMC4498685

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.