Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30158215›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

Understanding usual care for patients with multimorbidity: baseline data from a cluster-randomised trial of the 3D intervention in primary care.

Katherine Chaplin, Peter Bower, Mei-See Man, Sara T Brookes, Daisy Gaunt, Bruce Guthrie, Cindy Mann, Stewart W Mercer, Imran Rafi, Alison R G Shaw and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Healthcare needs, experiences and treatment burden in primary care patients with multimorbidity: An evaluation of process of care from patients' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine ChaplinCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1261-9938
Peter BowerNIHR School for Primary Care Research, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population of Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mei-See ManCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4948-5670
Sara T BrookesBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Daisy GauntBristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC), Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bruce GuthriePopulation Health Sciences Division, School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Cindy MannCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1256-1820
Stewart W MercerInstitute of Health and Wellbeing, General Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Imran RafiClinical Innovation and Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, London, UK.
Alison R G ShawCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Chris SalisburyCentre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4378-3960
University of Bristol · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBRoyal College of General Practitioners · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/130/15Medical Research Council G0800800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRecent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current 'usual primary care' for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested.

designAnalysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff.

settingPrimary care in the UK.

participantsPatients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Using surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients.Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma.

resultsParticipating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care.

conclusionThis trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityPatient SelectionPrimary Health CareStandard of CareAgedAged, 80 and overChronic DiseaseCost of IllnessFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PersonnelHumansMalePatient-Centered CarePatient Satisfactionchronic diseasecomorbidityfamily practicemultimorbiditypatient centred care

Identifiers

PMID30158215
PMCPMC6119425
OpenAlexW2889316332

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.