ReviewChronic diseases and translational medicine2015
The "expert patient" approach for non-communicable disease management in low and middle income settings: When the reality confronts the rhetoric.
Review in Chronic diseases and translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meaningful engagement with people with lived experience: challenging, messy, and more vital than ever.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the nurse-assisted eHealth intervention 'eHealth@Hospital-2-Home' on self-care by patients with heart failure and colorectal cancer post-hospital discharge: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Improving Mental Health Outcomes in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder in the Gulf States: A Review of the Role of Electronic Enablers in Monitoring Residual Symptoms.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Review
- A qualitative approach to experiential knowledge identified in focus groups aimed at co-designing a provocation test in the study of electrohypersensitivity.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- How the Term 'Self-Management' is Used in HIV Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2022Article
- A Narrative Review of the Patient Journey Through the Lens of Non-communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Advances in therapy · 2020Review
- Assessing Electronic Health Literacy in the State of Kuwait: Survey of Internet Users From an Arab State.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper seeks to explore the relevance between the Western "expert patient" rhetoric and the reality of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) control and management in low and middle income settings from the health sociological perspective. It firstly sets up a conceptual framework of the "expert patient" or the patient self-management approach, showing the rhetoric of the initiative in the developed countries. Then by examining the situation of NCDs control and management in low income settings, the paper tries to evaluate the possibilities of implementing the "expert patient" approach in these countries. Kober and Van Damme's study on the relevance of the "expert patient" for an HIV/AIDS program in low income settings is critically studied to show the relevance of the developed countries' rhetoric of the "expert patient" approach for the reality of developing countries. In addition, the MoPoTsyo diabetes peer educator program is analyzed to show the challenges faced by the low income countries in implementing patient self-management programs. Finally, applications of the expert patient approach in China are discussed as well, to remind us of the possible difficulties in introducing it into rural settings.
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.