ArticleBMJ open2020
Collaborating with healthcare providers to understand their perspectives on a hospital-to-home warning signs intervention for rural transitional care: protocol of a multimethod descriptive study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- The Role of the Nurse in the Management of Medicines During Transitional Care: A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study builds on our prior research, which identified that older rural patients and families (1) view preparation for detecting and responding to worsening health conditions as their most pressing unmet transitional care (TC) need and (2) perceive an evidence-based intervention, preparing them to detect and respond to warning signs of worsening health conditions, as highly likely to meet this need. Yet, what healthcare providers need to implement a warning signs intervention in rural TC is unclear. The objectives of this study are (1) to examine healthcare providers' perspectives on the acceptability of a warning signs intervention and (2) to identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare providers' provision of the intervention in rural communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multimethod descriptive study uses a community-based, participatory research approach. We will examine healthcare providers' perspectives on a warning signs intervention. A purposive, criterion-based sample of healthcare providers stratified by professional designation (three strata: nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals) in two regions (Southwestern and Northeastern Ontario, Canada) will (1) rate the acceptability of the intervention and (2) participate in small (n=4-6 healthcare providers), semistructured telephone focus group discussions on barriers and facilitators to delivering the intervention in rural communities. Two to three focus groups per stratum will be held in each region for a total of 12-18 focus groups. Data will be analysed using conventional qualitative content analysis and descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Office of Research Ethics at York University and the Health Sciences North Research Ethics Board. Findings will be communicated through plain language summary and policy briefs, press releases, manuscripts and conferences.
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.