Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31597223›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2019

Connecting patients, practitioners, and regulators in supporting positive experiences and processes of shared decision making: A progress report.

Fiona Browne, Steven Bettles, Stacey Clift, Tim Walker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Fiona BrowneProfessional Standards Department, General Osteopathic Council, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0194-480X
Steven BettlesProfessional Standards Department, General Osteopathic Council, London, UK.
Stacey CliftProfessional Standards Department, General Osteopathic Council, London, UK.
Tim WalkerProfessional Standards Department, General Osteopathic Council, London, UK.

Funding

General Dental CouncilGeneral Osteopathic Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper describes a novel approach to explore how regulators, working with patients and practitioners, may contribute to supporting person-centred care and processes of shared decision making in implementing professional standards and reducing harms. Osteopathic patients report high levels of patient care. However, areas of consultations less likely to be rated as high included "fully understanding your concerns," "helping you to take control," and "making a plan of action with you," suggestive of a paternalistic approach to care and a barrier to the effective implementation of standards. This programme explored how to support patients and practitioners to make more explicit what is important to support consultations with better communication in accordance with standards. A series of workshops took place involving approximately 80 participants, which explored and identified practitioner and patient values; these were themed to develop a common framework and tested using case studies. Aspects of what enables or presents a barrier to a positive consultation were further explored with real patient narratives, and a range of resources were subsequently developed, which may support patients and practitioners to make explicit what is important to them in a consultation. A series of approaches and tools were then developed for piloting including patient curriculum vitae; patient goal planner; patient animation to support preparation for an appointment; infographic: a patient poster or leaflet; practitioner reflective tool; and an audio recording to increase awareness and understanding of values-based practice. In conclusion, a range of approaches may help to support patients and practitioners to make explicit what is important to them in a consultation. The next phase of our programme will use a range of methods including cluster sampling, pre-testing and post-testing with the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure tool, and interviews and focus groups with users and practitioners to demonstrate impact.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedDelivery of Health CareOsteopathic MedicinePatient-Centered CareCommunication BarriersHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceQuality Assurance, Health CareUnited Kingdomcommunicationevaluationosteopathypatientsregulationshared decision makingvalueswhat matters

Identifiers

PMID31597223
PMCPMC6900193

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.