Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30445914›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

The impact of status and social context on health service co-design: an example from a collaborative improvement initiative in UK primary care.

Ian Litchfield, Louise Bentham, Ann Hill, Richard J McManus, Richard Lilford, Sheila Greenfield

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Pathway redesign: putting patients ahead of professionals.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2019
    Article
  12. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ian LitchfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. i.litchfield@bham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1169-5392
Louise BenthamInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ann HillWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Richard J McManusNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Richard LilfordWarwick Centre for Applied Health Research and Delivery, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Sheila GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-02-12-015Department of Health PB-PG-1208-18219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, collaborative participatory methods requiring open and honest interaction between a range of stakeholders are being used to improve health service delivery. To be successful these methodologies must incorporate perspectives from a range of patients and staff. Yet, if unaccounted for, the complex relationships amongst staff groups and between patients and providers can affect the veracity and applicability of co-designed solutions.

methodsTwo focus groups convened to discuss suggestions for the improvement of blood testing and result communication in primary care. The groups were mixed of patients and staff in various combinations drawn from the four participating study practices. Here we present a secondary mixed-method analysis of the interaction between participants in both groups using sociogrammatic and thematic analysis.

resultsDespite a similar mix of practice staff and patients the two groups produced contrasting discussions, seemingly influenced by status and social context. The sociograms provided a useful insight into the flow of conversation and highlighted the dominance of the senior staff member in the first focus group. Within the three key themes of social context, the alliances formed between participants and the fluidity of the roles assumed manifested differently between groups apparently dictated by the different profile of the participants of each.

conclusionsFor primary care service improvement attention must be paid to the background of participants when convening collaborative service improvement groups as status and imported hierarchies can have significant connotations for the data produced.

Indexed as

CommunicationCooperative BehaviorFocus GroupsDelivery of Health CareHealth ServicesHematologic TestsHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health CareQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareUnited KingdomFocus groupsHealthcare, primaryHealthcare, teamworkHealthcare users’ experienceRelationships, patient-provider

Identifiers

PMID30445914
PMCPMC6240286
OpenAlexW2901634937

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.