ArticleBMC health services research2018
What are the perceived added values and barriers of regulating long-term care in the home environment using a care network perspective: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What methods are used to promote patient and family involvement in healthcare regulation? A multiple case study across four countries.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Involving Service Users in Care Regulation: A Scoping Review of Empirical Literature.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- The temporal variations in the distribution of filial support from adult children to their aging parents across Europe and Israel.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Impact and Implementation of Social Prescribing in Primary Healthcare Units in Lisbon: A Mixed-Methods Study Protocol.International journal of integrated care · 2021Article
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
Abstract
backgroundChanges in Dutch policy towards long-term care led to the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate testing a regulatory framework focusing on care networks around older adults living independently. This regulatory activity involved all care providers and the older adults themselves.
methodsSemi-structured interviews with the older adults, and focus groups with care providers and inspectors were used to assess the perceived added value of, and barriers to the framework.
resultsThe positive elements of this framework were the involvement of the older adults in the regulatory activity, the focus of the framework on care networks and the open character of the conversations with the inspectors. However, applying the framework requires a substantial investment of time. Care providers often did not perceive themselves as being part of a care network around one person and they expressed concerns about financial and privacy issues when thinking in terms of care networks.
conclusionsThe experiences of the client were seen as important in regulating long-term care. Regulating care networks as a whole puts cooperation between care providers involved around one person on the agenda. However, barriers for this form of regulation were also perceived and, therefore, careful consideration when and how to regulate care networks is recommended.
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.