ArticleSAGE open medicine2014
Looking after yourself: Clinical understandings of chronic-care self-management strategies in rural and urban contexts of the United Kingdom and Australia.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The innovation characteristics of person-centred care as perceived by healthcare professionals: an interview study employing a deductive-inductive content analysis guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Stakeholders in support systems for self-care for chronic illness: the gap between expectations and reality regarding their identity, roles and relationships.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis article reports on the outcomes of two similar projects undertaken during 2011-2012 in Australia (Rural Northern New South Wales) and the United Kingdom (Urban Northern United Kingdom) that sought to identify the strategies that health professionals employ to actively involve patients with chronic conditions in the planning and delivery of their care. In particular, this study explored understandings and contexts of care that impacted on the participants' practices. This study was informed by the global shift to partnership approaches in health policy and the growing imperative to deliver patient or client-centred care.
methodsAn ethnomethodological design was used, as ethnomethodology does not dictate a set of research methods or procedures, but rather is congruent with any method that seeks to explore what people do in their routine everyday lives. Focus groups and interviews were employed to explore the strategies used by a range of primary health-care providers, such as general practitioners, nurses, social workers, diabetes educators, dieticians and occupational therapists, to support clients to effectively manage their own chronic conditions.
resultsData from both studies were synthesised and analysed thematically, with the themes reflecting the context, similarities and differences of the two studies that the participants felt had either facilitated or blocked their efforts to support their clients to adopt self-care strategies.
conclusionSupporting patients/clients to engage in actively self-managing their health-care needs requires changes to clients' and clinicians' traditional perspectives on their roles. The barriers and enablers to supporting clients to manage their own health needs were similar across both locations and included tensions in role identity and functions, the discourse of health-care professionals as 'experts' who deliver care and their level of confidence in being facilitators who 'educate' clients to effectively manage their health-care needs, rather than only the 'providers' of 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.