ArticleBMJ open2017
Protocol for a scoping review study to identify and classify patient-centred quality indicators.
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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determining the Intersection of Social Prescribing in Social Work Practice: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Effects of physical activity on visual outcomes among type 2 diabetes patients: protocol for a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Brief Interventions for Families Seeking Support from Family Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Does value-based healthcare support patient-centred care? A scoping review of the evidence.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Coping strategies of the incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol of quantitative and qualitative evidence.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Contraceptive dynamics among women with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- A scoping review of system-level mechanisms to prevent children being in out-of-home care.British journal of social work · 2022Article
- Quality care process metrics for nurses working in general practice, mapping the evidence: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2022Article
- Smoking cessation interventions in South Asian countries: protocol for scoping review.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Improving the quality of person-centred healthcare from the patient perspective: development of person-centred quality indicators.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations: protocol for a scoping review.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Quality indicators for clinical care of patients with hypertension: scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Measuring patient-centred system performance: a scoping review of patient-centred care quality indicators.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Electronic patient-generated health data to facilitate prevention and health promotion: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2018Article
- How to measure cultural competence when evaluating patient-centred care: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2018Article
- How to practice person-centred care: A conceptual framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018Review
- Social work's scope of practice in the provision of primary mental health care: protocol for a scoping review.BMJ open · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.