Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26888411›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2016

Brief encounters: what do primary care professionals contribute to peoples' self-care support network for long-term conditions? A mixed methods study.

Anne Rogers, Ivaylo Vassilev, Helen Brooks, Anne Kennedy, Christian Blickem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mirror meetings with frail older people and multidisciplinary primary care teams: Process and impact analysis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019
    Article
  8. The different perspectives of patients, informal caregivers and professionals on patient involvement in primary care teams. A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  9. Review
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

5 authors.

Anne RogersNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, S017 1BJ, Hampshire, UK. a.e.rogers@soton.ac.uk.
Ivaylo VassilevNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, S017 1BJ, Hampshire, UK. I.I.vassilev@soton.ac.uk.
Helen BrooksNIHR CLARHC Greater Manchester, School of Nursing & Midwifery University of Manchester, Williamson Building, M139PL, Manchester, UK. helen.cording@manchester.ac.uk.
Anne KennedyNIHR CLAHRC Wessex, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Building 67, Highfield Campus, University Road, S017 1BJ, Hampshire, UK. a.kennedy@soton.ac.uk.
Christian BlickemCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 2AJ, UK. c.c.Blickem@ljmu.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care professionals are presumed to play a central role in delivering long-term condition management. However the value of their contribution relative to other sources of support in the life worlds of patients has been less acknowledged. Here we explore the value of primary care professionals in people's personal communities of support for long-term condition management.

methodsA mixed methods survey with nested qualitative study designed to identify relationships and social network member's (SNM) contributions to the support work of managing a long-term condition conducted in 2010 in the North West of England. Through engagement with a concentric circles diagram three hundred participants identified 2544 network members who contributed to illness management.

resultsThe results demonstrated how primary care professionals are involved relative to others in ongoing self-care management. Primary care professionals constituted 15.5 % of overall network members involved in chronic illness work. Their contribution was identified as being related to illness specific work providing less in terms of emotional work than close family members or pets and little to everyday work. The qualitative accounts suggested that primary care professionals are valued mainly for access to medication and nurses for informational and monitoring activities. Overall primary care is perceived as providing less input in terms of extended self-management support than the current literature on policy and practice suggests. Thus primary care professionals can be described as providing 'minimally provided support'. This sense of a 'minimally' provided input reinforces limited expectations and value about what primary care professionals can provide in terms of support for long-term condition management.

conclusionsPrimary care was perceived as having an essential but limited role in making a contribution to support work for long-term conditions. This coalesces with evidence of a restricted capacity of primary care to take on the work load of self-management support work. There is a need to prioritise exploring the means by which extended self-care support could be enhanced out-with primary care. Central to this is building a system capable of engaging network capacity to mobilise resources for self-management support from open settings and the broader community.

Indexed as

Nurse's RolePhysicians, Primary CarePhysician's RoleSelf CareSocial SupportAnimalsChronic DiseaseCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetes MellitusDisease ManagementEnglandFamilyFriendsHeart DiseasesHumansLinear Models

Identifiers

PMID26888411
PMCPMC4756522

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.