Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27421297›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Commissioning of self-management support for people with long-term conditions: an exploration of commissioning aspirations and processes.

Claire Reidy, Anne Kennedy, Catherine Pope, Claire Ballinger, Ivo Vassilev, Anne Rogers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Claire ReidyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Anne KennedyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Catherine PopeFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Claire BallingerFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3647-7631
Ivo VassilevFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Anne RogersFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) Wessex, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore how self-management support (SMS) is considered and conceptualised by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and whether this is reflected in strategic planning and commissioning. SMS is an essential element of long-term condition (LTC) management and CCGs are responsible for commissioning services that are coordinated, integrated and link into patient's everyday lives. This focus provides a good test and exemplar for how commissioners communicate with their local population to find out what they need.

designA multisite, quasi-ethnographic exploration of 9 CCGs.

settingNational Health Service (NHS) CCGs in southern England, representing varied socioeconomic status, practice sizes and rural and urban areas. DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS: Content analysis of CCG forward plans for mention of SMS. Semistructured interviews with commissioners (n=10) explored understanding of SMS and analysed thematically. The practice of commissioning explored through the observations of Service User Researchers (n=5) attending Governing Body meetings (n=10, 30 hours).

resultsObservations illuminate the relative absence of SMS and gateways to active engagement with patient and public voices. Content analysis of plans point to tensions between local aspirations and those identified by NHS England for empowering patients by enhancing SMS services ('person-centred', whole systems). Interview data highlight disparities in the process of translating the forward plans into practice. Commissioners reference SMS as a priority yet details of local initiatives are notably absent with austerity (cost-containment) and nationally measured biomedical outcomes taking precedence.

conclusionsCommissioners conceptualise locally sensitive SMS as a means to improve health and reduce service use, but structural and financial constraints result in prioritisation of nationally driven outcome measures and payments relating to biomedical targets. Ultimately, there is little evidence of local needs driving SMS in CCGs. CCGs need to focus more on early strategic planning of lay involvement to provide an avenue for genuine engagement, so that support can be provided for communities and individuals in a way people will engage with.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseSelf-ManagementAdvisory CommitteesAttitude of Health PersonnelEnglandHealth Care ReformHealth PlanningHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansInterviews as TopicPatient-Centered CarePrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchState MedicineCommissioningEthnographyHealth services researchSelf-management support

Identifiers

PMID27421297
PMCPMC4964251

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.