ArticleBMJ open2018
Protocol for a participatory study for developing qualitative instruments measuring the quality of long-term care relationships.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collaborating with cancer patients and informal caregivers in a European study on quality of life: protocol to embed patient and public involvement within the EUonQoL project.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Review
- Text mining in long-term care: Exploring the usefulness of artificial intelligence in a nursing home setting.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Lessons learned from participatory research to enhance client participation in long-term care research: a multiple case study.Research involvement and engagement · 2020Article
- Determinants of the quality of care relationships in long-term care - a participatory study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Themes Related to Experienced Quality of Care in Nursing Homes From the Resident's Perspective: A Systematic Literature Review and Thematic Synthesis.Gerontology & geriatric medicineReview
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn long-term care (LTC), it is unclear which qualitative instruments are most effective and useful for monitoring the quality of the care relationship from the client's perspective. In this paper, we describe the research design for a study aimed at finding and optimising the most suitable and useful qualitative instruments for monitoring the care relationship in LTC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will be performed in three organisations providing care to the following client groups: physically or mentally frail elderly, people with mental health problems and people with intellectual disabilities. Using a participatory research method, we will determine which determinants influence the quality of a care relationship and we will evaluate up to six instruments in cooperation with client-researchers. We will also determine whether the instruments (or parts thereof) can be applied across different LTC settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol describes a participatory research design for evaluating the quality of the care relationship in LTC. The Medical Ethics Committee of the Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre decided that formal approval was not needed under the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. This research project will result in a toolbox and implementation plan, which can be used by clients and care professionals to measure and improve the care relationship from the client's perspective. The results will also be published in international peer-reviewed journals.
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.