Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31678950›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Developing patient-centred, feasible alternative care for adult emergency department users with epilepsy: protocol for the mixed-methods observational 'Collaborate' project.

Adam J Noble, Amy Mathieson, Leone Ridsdale, E A Holmes, Myfanwy Morgan, Alison McKinlay, Jon Mark Dickson, Mike Jackson, Dyfrig A Hughes, Steve Goodacre and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04248920 (Clinic to Community© Program for Adults With Epilepsy Admitted to Emergency Departments), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

NCT04248920 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Clinic to Community© Program for Adults With Epilepsy Admitted to Emergency Departments: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorLondon Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sRan2022 to 2023Enrolled9ConditionsEpilepsy, GeneralizedArmsClinic to Community Education Program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

11 authors.

Adam J NobleDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK adam.noble@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8070-4352
Amy MathiesonDepartment of Health Services Research, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Leone RidsdaleDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
E A HolmesCentre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Myfanwy MorganInstitute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, UK.
Alison McKinlayBasic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-3502
Jon Mark DicksonAcademic Unit of Primary Medical Care, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1361-2714
Mike JacksonNorth West Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Bolton, UK.
Dyfrig A HughesCentre for Health Economics & Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Steve GoodacreMedical Care Research Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Anthony G MarsonDepartment of Molecular and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 17/05/62
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmergency department (ED) visits for epilepsy are common, costly, often clinically unnecessary and typically lead to little benefit for epilepsy management. An 'Alternative Care Pathway' (ACP) for epilepsy, which diverts people with epilepsy (PWE) away from ED when '999' is called and leads to care elsewhere, might generate savings and facilitate improved ambulatory care. It is unknown though what features it should incorporate to make it acceptable to persons from this particularly vulnerable target population. It also needs to be National Health Service (NHS) feasible. This project seeks to identify the optimal ACP configuration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed-methods project comprising three-linked stages. In Stage 1, NHS bodies will be surveyed on ACPs they are considering and semi-structured interviews with PWE and their carers will explore attributes of care important to them and their concerns and expectations regarding ACPs. In Stage 2, Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE) will be completed with PWE and carers to identify the relative importance placed on different care attributes under common seizure scenarios and the trade-offs people are willing to make. The uptake of different ACP configurations will be estimated. In Stage 3, two Knowledge Exchange workshops using a nominal group technique will be run. NHS managers, health professionals, commissioners and patient and carer representatives will discuss DCE results and form a consensus on which ACP configuration best meets users' needs and is NHS feasible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval: NRES Committee (19/WM/0012) and King's College London ethics Committee (LRS-18/19-10353). Primary output will be identification of optimal ACP configuration which should be prioritised for implementation and evaluation. A pro-active dissemination strategy will make those considering developing or supporting an epilepsy ACP aware of the project and opportunities to take part in it. It will also ensure they are informed of its findings. PROJECT REGISTRATION NUMBER: Researchregistry4723.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalEmergency TreatmentPatient-Centered CareResearch DesignAdultEpilepsyHumansObservational Studies as Topicaccident & emergency medicineepilepsyhealth economicsorganisation of health servicesqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID31678950
PMCPMC6830638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.