Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491268›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Bridging the gap between patient needs and quality indicators: a qualitative study with chronic heart failure patients.

Ines Baudendistel, Stefan Noest, Frank Peters-Klimm, Heidrun Herzberg, Martin Scherer, Eva Blozik, Stefanie Joos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ines BaudendistelDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan NoestDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Frank Peters-KlimmDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidrun HerzbergFaculty of Health, Nursing, Administration, University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, Neubrandenburg, Germany.
Martin SchererDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Eva BlozikDepartment of Primary Medical Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefanie JoosDepartment of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany ; Institute for General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf · DENeubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe German National Disease Management Guideline (NDMG) on chronic heart failure (CHF) derived nine clinical quality indicators (QIs) to enable assessment of quality of health care in patients with CHF. These QIs epitomize an evidence-based and somatic point of view of guided treatment, but little is known about the experiences and views of patients with their guideline-based treatment across multiple health care sectors.

objectiveThe purpose of this qualitative study was to explore patient perspectives on guided treatment of CHF across multiple health care sectors. Furthermore, it was investigated to what extent patient perspectives are represented by the QIs of the German NDMG.

methodsUsing a qualitative approach, semistructured interviews were carried out with 17 CHF patients. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsPatient-identified needs focused primarily on aspects like the doctor-patient relationship, communication, quality of individual-tailored information, and professional advice. Patients perceived shortcomings in processes of care such as communication and cooperation across health care sectors, especially at the transition between hospital and outpatient care. DISCUSSION: From the patient perspectives, the QIs do represent relevant somatic and clinical aims for quality measurement. However, deficits were identified, especially related to communication and cooperation across health care sectors. Given the fact that the inclusion of patient perspectives in quality improvement processes provides an important contribution to patient-centered health care, possible approaches for QI development such as direct and indirect patient involvement or generic vs disease-specific patient-related QIs should be the subject of future discussions.

Indexed as

chronic heart failurenational disease management guidelinepatient involvementpatient perspectivesquality indicators

Identifiers

PMID26491268
PMCPMC4599174
OpenAlexW2162379097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.