ArticleLondon journal of primary care2018
Reflections on integrated care from those working in and leading integrated respiratory teams.
Article in London journal of primary care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical and mental health professionals perspectives of providing mental health care for young people: A qualitative interview study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Process of Reliability of the Ventilatory Workload Kinetic Index and Prioritization in the Intrahospital Clinical Setting.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Retrospective Analysis of the Ventilatory Workload Kinetic Index during Stability and Crisis in Patients with Asthma and COPD in a Monitored Program.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Primary care services in the English NHS: are they a thorn in the side of integrated care systems? A qualitative analysis.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Nonpharmacological management of psychological distress in people with COPD.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The concept of integrated care has been advocated for many years to address some of the challenges faced by the NHS. This report examines the experiences of respiratory healthcare specialists working in an integrated role. Twelve qualitative telephone interviews were undertaken with a range of integrated respiratory specialists and their teams working in both hospitals and the community. A descriptive and thematic approach to data analysis was adopted. Participants were very enthusiastic about their roles and saw themselves as ambassadors for this new way of working. Several key themes were identified from the analysis which participants identified as barriers or enablers to the successful undertaking of an integrated respiratory specialist role. These included the participants' previous work experience and background, the range of multi-disciplinary expertise within or needed for the team, the structure of the team leadership and the measurement of outcomes to evaluate the team. Participants identified the need for clear job descriptions and roles, shared training and standards and appropriate outcome evaluation. More research is needed to understand how these new ways of working are developing and how they can be evaluated.
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.