ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2019
Gaining an accurate reflection of the reality of palliative care through the use of free-text feedback in questionnaires: the AFTER study.
Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review of Unsolicited Comments on the CAHPS 5.0 Health Plan Survey.Journal of patient experience · 2021Article
- Symptom management, nutrition and hydration at end-of-life: a qualitative exploration of patients', carers' and health professionals' experiences and further research questions.BMC palliative care · 2018Article
- "It still haunts me whether we did the right thing": a qualitative analysis of free text survey data on the bereavement experiences and support needs of family caregivers.BMC palliative care · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn healthcare, many service evaluation questionnaires use free-text boxes without formal mechanisms for analysis. Patients and carers spend time documenting concerns that are often ignored or managed locally in an ad hoc manner. Currently, palliative care experiences of patients and carers in Wales are measured using a service evaluation questionnaire, comprising both closed and open-ended questions. Previous research, exploring free-text responses from this questionnaire, suggests that questionnaire refinement should accommodate service users' expressed priorities and concerns, and highlights the need to incorporate free-text data analysis strategies during study design.
methodsResults from a previous analysis of 596 free-text responses provided the basis for an expert consensus day, where the current service evaluation questionnaire was refined. The refined version was tested during cognitive interviews with patients (n=10) and carers (n=7) receiving palliative care from 1 of 2 UK hospices. Data were analysed thematically.
resultsInterviews highlighted minor areas for change within the questionnaire and provided broader insight into patients' experiences of palliative care services. Patients and carers place an emphasis on simplifying language, decreasing the numeric response range and reducing written instructions; relying instead on visual cues, including formatting and layout. Findings highlighted the importance patients attached to providing meaningful free-text contributions.
conclusionsQuestionnaire refinement should use the patient perspective to effectively facilitate respondent understanding, pertinence and usability. The importance of employing data analysis strategies during questionnaire design may reduce research waste, thus enabling a better interrogation of service provision.
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.