Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28780556›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Evaluation of DementiaNet, a network-based primary care innovation for community-dwelling patients with dementia: protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study.

Anke Richters, Minke S Nieuwboer, Marieke Perry, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Rene J F Melis, Marjolein A van der Marck

Abstract 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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  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.

Anke RichtersDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Minke S NieuwboerRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Geriatric Medicine Radboud UMC Alzheimer Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke PerryRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Geriatric Medicine Radboud UMC Alzheimer Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marcel G M Olde RikkertDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Donders Institute for Brain Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Rene J F MelisRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Geriatric Medicine Radboud UMC Alzheimer Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein A van der MarckRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Geriatric Medicine Radboud UMC Alzheimer Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrimary healthcare professionals will increasingly be required to manage and optimise their treatment for patients with dementia. With DementiaNet, we aim to reduce the burden of dementia on healthcare services and society through implementation and facilitation of integrated network-based care with increased dementia expertise. DementiaNet is designed as a stepwise approach including clinical leadership, quality improvement cycles and interprofessional training, which are tailor-made to the local context. For example, the composition of the network and improvement goals are tailored to the local context and availability. Here, we describe the linked evaluation study which aims to provide insight in effectiveness, process and mechanism of the DementiaNet approach through an innovative evaluation design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We designed a longitudinal, mixed methods, multiple case study. Study population consists of two levels: (i) local DementiaNet networks of primary care professionals and (ii) patients and informal caregivers who receive care from these networks. At the start and after 12 and 24 months, quantitative data are collected for each network on: level of network maturity, quality of care indicators and outcomes reported by informal caregivers of dementia patients. We assess changes in networks over time and the association with quality of care and informal caregiver-reported outcomes. Throughout the study, logs about each network are registered. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with network members and informal caregivers will provide insight in experiences and opinions regarding effects and mechanisms through which changes in quantitative outcomes are effectuated. Rich narratives will be constructed about the development of the local networks using collected data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the local medical ethics committee; formal judgement was not required (protocol number: 2015-2053). The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and presentations for healthcare professionals where appropriate.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentInternetAged, 80 and overCaregiversCooperative BehaviorCost-Benefit AnalysisDementiaEducation, Medical, ContinuingFrail ElderlyGeriatriciansHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services for the AgedHumansIndependent LivingInterprofessional RelationsLongitudinal Studiesdementiageriatric medicineprimary care

Identifiers

PMID28780556
PMCPMC5629707

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.