Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28057655›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Protocol for a scoping review study to identify and classify patient-centred quality indicators.

Rachel J Jolley, Diane L Lorenzetti, Kimberly Manalili, Mingshan Lu, Hude Quan, Maria J Santana

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Brief Interventions for Families Seeking Support from Family Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Review
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel J JolleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Diane L LorenzettiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kimberly ManaliliDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Mingshan LuDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Hude QuanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7848-7256
Maria J SantanaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe concept of patient-centred care (PCC) is changing the way healthcare is understood, accepted and delivered. The Institute of Medicine has defined PCC as 1 of its 6 aims to improve healthcare quality. However, in Canada, there are currently no nationwide standards in place for measuring and evaluating healthcare from a patient-centred approach. In this paper, we outline our scoping review protocol to systematically review published and unpublished literature specific to patient-centred quality indicators that have been implemented and evaluated across various care settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework will guide the conduct of this scoping review. We will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Social Work Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts), grey literature sources and the reference lists of key studies to identify studies appropriate for inclusion. 2 reviewers will independently screen all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion. We will include any study which focuses on quality indicators in the context of PCC. All bibliographic data, study characteristics and indicators will be collected and analysed using a tool developed through an iterative process by the research team. Indicators will be classified according to a predefined conceptual framework and categorised and described using qualitative content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The scoping review will synthesise patient-centred quality indicators and their characteristics as described in the literature. This review will be the first step to formally identify what quality indicators have been used to evaluate PCC across the healthcare continuum, and will be used to inform a stakeholder consensus process exploring the development of a generic set of patient-centred quality indicators applicable to multiple care settings. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and a one-day stakeholder meeting.

Indexed as

Databases, BibliographicHumansPatient-Centered CareQuality Indicators, Health CareResearch DesignScoping Reviews as Topichealth services researchpatient-centred carequality indicators

Identifiers

PMID28057655
PMCPMC5223714
OpenAlexW2568466711

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.