ArticleBMJ open2016
Commissioning care for people with dementia at the end of life: a mixed-methods study.
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 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.
- Article
- A scoping review of gaps and priorities in dementia care in Europe.Dementia (London, England) · 2020Article
- The value of dementia care towards the end of life-A contingent valuation study.International journal of geriatric psychiatry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo understand how end-of-life (EoL) care for people with dementia is currently commissioned (ie, contracted) and organised, with a view to informing the development of commissioning guidance for good-quality community-based EoL care in dementia.
designMixed-methods study; narrative review and qualitative interviews.
setting8 National Health Service (NHS) clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and five adult services across England.
methodsNarrative review of evidence; 20 semistructured interviews (telephone and face-to-face) with professionals involved in commissioning EoL care for people with dementia.
main outcome measuresSummary of the existing evidence base for commissioning, commissioners' approaches to the commissioning process for EoL care for people with dementia in England.
resultsIn the context of commissioning EoL for people with dementia, the literature review generated three key themes: (1) importance of joint commissioning; (2) lack of clarity for the process and (3) factors influencing commissioning. In exploring health professionals' perceptions of the commissioning process, 'uncertainty' was elicited as an overarching theme across the CCGs interviewed. Organisation of the process, lack of expertise, issues surrounding integration and the art of specification were considered important factors that contribute to the uncertainty surrounding the commissioning process.
conclusionsThe current evidence base for commissioning EoL care is limited with considerable uncertainty as how clinical commissioners in England undertake the process to ensure future services are evidence-based.
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.