Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27621678›Full record

ArticlePatient related outcome measures2016

The Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire: conceptual framework and item development.

Michele Peters, Caroline M Potter, Laura Kelly, Cheryl Hunter, Elizabeth Gibbons, Crispin Jenkinson, Angela Coulter, Julien Forder, Ann-Marie Towers, Christine A'Court and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  7. Living well while providing support: validation of LTCQ-Carer for assessing informal carers' quality of life.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Development and testing of the reliability and validity of a Chinese version of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire.Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors.

Michele PetersHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Caroline M PotterHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Laura KellyHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Cheryl HunterHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Elizabeth GibbonsHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Crispin JenkinsonHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Angela CoulterHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Julien ForderPersonal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.
Ann-Marie TowersPersonal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.
Christine A'CourtNuffield Department of Primary Health Care Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford; Broadshires Health Centre, Carterton, UK.
Ray FitzpatrickHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify the main issues of importance when living with long-term conditions to refine a conceptual framework for informing the item development of a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions. MATERIALS AND

methodsSemi-structured qualitative interviews (n=48) were conducted with people living with at least one long-term condition. Participants were recruited through primary care. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis. The analysis served to refine the conceptual framework, based on reviews of the literature and stakeholder consultations, for developing candidate items for a new measure for long-term conditions.

resultsThree main organizing concepts were identified: impact of long-term conditions, experience of services and support, and self-care. The findings helped to refine a conceptual framework, leading to the development of 23 items that represent issues of importance in long-term conditions. The 23 candidate items formed the first draft of the measure, currently named the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire.

conclusionThe aim of this study was to refine the conceptual framework and develop items for a patient-reported outcome measure for long-term conditions, including single and multiple morbidities and physical and mental health conditions. Qualitative interviews identified the key themes for assessing outcomes in long-term conditions, and these underpinned the development of the initial draft of the measure. These initial items will undergo cognitive testing to refine the items prior to further validation in a survey.

Indexed as

conceptual frameworklong-term conditionspatient-reported outcome measurequalitative interviews

Identifiers

PMID27621678
PMCPMC5012841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.