Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29062506›Full record

ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2016

Patient-reported quality indicators for osteoarthritis: a patient and public generated self-report measure for primary care.

Steven Blackburn, Adele Higginbottom, Robert Taylor, Jo Bird, Nina Østerås, Kåre Birger Hagen, John J Edwards, Kelvin P Jordan, Clare Jinks, Krysia Dziedzic

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven BlackburnArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Adele HigginbottomArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Robert TaylorLay Member of the Osteoarthritis Research User Group, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Jo BirdLay Member of the Osteoarthritis Research User Group, Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Nina ØsteråsDiakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kåre Birger HagenDiakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
John J EdwardsArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Kelvin P JordanArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Clare JinksArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Krysia DziedzicArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care & Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Keele University · GBDiakonhjemmet Hospital · NO

Funding

Department of Health CAT CDRF 10-018Department of Health IAT/I-PF/010/009Department of Health KMRF-2014-03-002Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10386Medical Research Council G0501798
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

plain english summaryPeople with osteoarthritis desire high quality care, support and information. However, the quality of care for people with OA in general practice is not routinely collected. Quality Indicators can be used to benefit patients by measuring whether minimum standards of quality care are being met from a patient perspective. The aim of this study was to describe how a Research User Group (RUG) worked alongside researchers to co-produce a set of self-reported quality indicators for people with osteoarthritis when visiting their general practitioner or practice nurse (primary care). These were required in the MOSAICS study, which developed and evaluated a new model of supported self-management of OA to implement the NICE quality standards for OA. This article describes the public involvement in the MOSAICS study. This was 1) the co-development by RUG members and researchers of an Osteoarthritis Quality Indicators United Kingdom (OA QI (UK)) questionnaire for use in primary care, and 2) the comparison of the OA QI (UK) with a similar questionnaire developed in Norway. This study shows how important and effective a research user group can be in working with researchers in developing quality care indicators for osteoarthritis for use in a research study and, potentially, routine use in primary care. The questionnaire is intended to benefit patients by enabling the assessment of the quality of primary care for osteoarthritis from a patient's perspective. The OA QI (UK) has been used to examine differences in the quality of osteoarthritis care in four European countries. ABSTRACT:

Indexed as

ImpactOsteoarthritisPatient and public involvementPatient-reportedPrimary careQuality indicator

Identifiers

PMID29062506
PMCPMC5611660
OpenAlexW2298158636

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.