ArticleBMJ open2019
Healthcare practitioners' experiences of an intervention to detect and treat patients with liver disease (the LOCATE intervention): a qualitative process evaluation.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe local care and treatment of liver disease (LOCATE) intervention embedded specialist liver nurses in general practitioner (GP) practices to improve the identification of progressive liver disease, enabling earlier intervention. This current process evaluation examines GP practice staffs' perceptions of the LOCATE intervention, in order to understand any potential barriers to successful implementation in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingA qualitative process evaluation nested within the LOCATE feasibility trial, using semistructured interviews with practice staff from five GP surgeries in the UK.
participantsA purposive sample of 29 interviews with practice staff (GPs, nurses, practice managers). DATA COLLECTION: Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis.
findingsThe intervention was found to be acceptable to practice staff and a number of barriers and facilitators to the success of the intervention were identified. However, interviews suggested that the intervention did not provide sufficient guidance for clinicians to be able to help patients make the behavioural changes needed to reduce risk factors associated with liver disease. The intervention did appear to improve clinician awareness and knowledge about liver disease, enabling GPs to feel more confident interpreting and managing liver function blood tests in order to identify the early signs of liver disease.
conclusionsThis study enabled identification of potential barriers to implementation of specialist nurses in primary care to identify progressive liver disease and enable earlier intervention. The next steps are to improve the intervention to make it more feasible to implement in practice and more likely to help patients to make the behavioural changes required to prevent a major liver event. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 13/SC/0012; Post-results. ETHICS: This study was reviewed and approved by NRES Committee South Central-Hampshire A, Bristol Research Ethics Committee Centre, level 3, block B, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead Bristol BS1 2NT.
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.