ArticlePloS one2021
Content comparison and person-centeredness of standards for quality improvement in cardiovascular health care.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality standards are important for improving health care by providing compelling evidence for best practice. High quality person-centered health care requires information on patients' experience of disease and of functioning in daily life.
objectiveTo analyze and compare the content of five Swedish National Quality Registries (NQRs) and two standard sets of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) related to cardiovascular diseases. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn analysis of 2588 variables (= data items) of five NQRs-the Swedish Registry of Congenital Heart Disease, Swedish Cardiac Arrest Registry, Swedish Catheter Ablation Registry, Swedish Heart Failure Registry, SWEDEHEART (including four sub-registries) and two ICHOM standard sets-the Heart Failure Standard Set and the Coronary Artery Disease Standard Set. According to the name and definition of each variable, the variables were mapped to Donabedian's quality criteria, whereby identifying whether they capture health care processes or structures or patients' health outcomes. Health outcomes were further analyzed whether they were clinician- or patient-reported and whether they capture patients' physiological functions, anatomical structures or activities and participation.
resultsIn total, 606 variables addressed process quality criteria (31%), 58 structure quality criteria (3%) and 760 outcome quality criteria (38%). Of the outcomes reported, 85% were reported by clinicians and 15% by patients. Outcome variables addressed mainly 'Body functions' (n = 392, 55%) or diseases (n = 209, 29%). Two percent of all documented data captured patients' lived experience of disease and their daily activities and participation (n = 51, 3% of all variables).
conclusionsQuality standards in the cardiovascular field focus predominately on processes (e.g. treatment) and on body functions-related outcomes. Less attention is given to patients' lived experience of disease and their daily activities and participation. The results can serve as a starting-point for harmonizing data and developing a common person-centered quality indicator set.
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.