Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481859›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Health information exchange for patients with intellectual disabilities: a general practice perspective.

Mathilde Mastebroek, Jenneken Naaldenberg, Francine A van den Driessen Mareeuw, Geraline L Leusink, Antoine Lm Lagro-Janssen, Henny Mj van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Mathilde MastebroekDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jenneken NaaldenbergDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Francine A van den Driessen MareeuwDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Geraline L LeusinkDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Antoine Lm Lagro-JanssenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Henny Mj van Schrojenstein Lantman-de ValkDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInadequate health information exchange (HIE) between patients with intellectual disabilities (ID), their carers, and GPs may lead to ineffective treatment and poor treatment compliance. Factors influencing HIE are largely unexplored in previous research.

aimTo provide insight into the perceived HIE facilitators of GPs and general practice assistants, and the barriers in GP consultations for patients with ID. DESIGN AND

settingAn interview-based study with GPs (n = 19) and general practice assistants (n = 11) in the Netherlands.

methodSemi-structured interviews were conducted on topics relating to stages during and around GP consultation. Transcripts were coded and analysed using framework analysis.

resultsThe main themes were impaired medical history taking and clinical decision making, and fragile patient follow-up. Factors negatively influencing HIE related to patient communication skills and professional carers' actions in preparing the consultation and in collecting, recording, and sharing information. HIE barriers resulted in risk of delay in diagnosis and treatment, misdiagnosis, unnecessary tests, and ineffective treatment regimens. HIE facilitators were described in terms of GP adjustments in communication, planning of consultations, and efforts to compensate for fragile follow-up situations.

conclusionInadequate HIE should be seen as a chain of events leading to less effective consultations, substandard treatment, and insufficient patient follow-up. The results indicate a mismatch between GPs' expectations about professional carers' competencies, responsibilities, and roles in HIE and the setting in which professional carers operate. Further research should focus on how daily GP practice can be attuned to the practicalities of HIE with patients with ID and their professional carers.

Indexed as

Health Information ExchangeIntellectual DisabilityAttitude of Health PersonnelFollow-Up StudiesGeneral PracticeHealth LiteracyHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchReferral and Consultationcontinuity of patient caregeneral practicehealth communicationhealth information exchange/managementintellectual disability

Identifiers

PMID27481859
PMCPMC5033308
OpenAlexW2506282429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.