ArticlePediatric rheumatology online journal2019
Development of a benchmarking toolkit for adolescent and young adult rheumatology services (BeTAR).
Article in Pediatric rheumatology online journal, 2019. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying patient priority targets for improving a transitional care young adult rheumatology service: a group concept mapping evaluation.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2025Article
- Assessing patient preferences for medical decision making - a comparison of different methods.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Developmentally appropriate transitional care during the Covid-19 pandemic for young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: the rationale for a position statement.Pediatric rheumatology online journal · 2021Review
- Young Minds: Mental Health and Transitional Care in Adolescent and Young Adult Rheumatology.Open access rheumatology : research and reviews · 2020Review
- Transitional Care in Rheumatology: a Review of the Literature from the Past 5 Years.Current rheumatology reports · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundYoung people (YP; 12-24 years old) with rheumatic diseases face many challenges associated with chronic illness in addition to the physiological and psychosocial changes of adolescence. Timely access to developmentally appropriate multidisciplinary care is key to successfully managing rheumatic diseases, but gaps in the care of this vulnerable age group still exist. This study aimed to develop a benchmarking toolkit to enable comparative evaluation of YP rheumatology services in order to promote best practice and reduce variations in service delivery.
methodsA staged and consultative method was used across a broad group of stakeholders in the UK (YP, parents/other carers, and healthcare professionals, HCPs) to develop this toolkit, with reference to pre-existing standards of YP-friendly healthcare. Eighty-seven YP (median age 19 years, range 12-24 years) and 26 rheumatology HCPs with 1-34 years of experience caring for YP have participated.
resultsThirty quality criteria were identified, which were grouped into four main domains: assessment and treatment, information and involvement, accessibility and environment, and continuity of care. Two toolkit versions, one to be completed by HCPs and one to be completed by patients, were developed. These were further refined by relevant groups and face validity was confirmed.
conclusionsA toolkit has been developed to systematically evaluate and benchmark YP rheumatology services, which is key in setting standards of care, identifying targets for improvement and facilitating research. Engagement from YP, clinical teams, and commissioners with this tool should facilitate investigation of variability in levels of care and drive quality improvement.
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.