Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26435042›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2015

The gap between policy and practice: a systematic review of patient-centred care interventions in chronic heart failure.

P M Kane, F E M Murtagh, K Ryan, N G Mahon, B McAdam, R McQuillan, C Ellis-Smith, C Tracey, C Howley, C Raleigh and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Crisis in the Health System and Quality of Healthcare in Economically Developed Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

P M KaneKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. pauline.m.kane@kcl.ac.uk.
F E M MurtaghKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
K RyanSt. Francis Hospice, Dublin, Ireland.
N G MahonMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
B McAdamBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
R McQuillanSt. Francis Hospice, Dublin, Ireland.
C Ellis-SmithKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
C TraceyMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
C HowleyMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
C RaleighBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
G O'GaraBeaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
I J HigginsonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
B A DavesonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ, UK.
Cicely Saunders International · GBMater Misericordiae University Hospital · IEBeaumont Hospital · IEIrish Hospice Foundation · IE

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1210-12015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II-IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included 'patient-centred care', 'quality of life' and 'shared decision making'. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.

Indexed as

Decision MakingChronic DiseaseHeart FailureHumansPatient-Centered CareQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHeart failurePalliative carePatient-centred careShared decision-makingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26435042
PMCPMC4608978
OpenAlexW1863056285

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.