Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33690148›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2021

Effectiveness and perceptions of using templates in long-term condition reviews: a systematic synthesis of quantitative and qualitative studies.

Mary Morrissey, Elizabeth Shepherd, Emma Kinley, Kirstie McClatchey, Hilary Pinnock

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 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 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Challenges to quality in contemporary, hybrid general practice a multi-site longitudinal case study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. IMPImplementation science communications · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Leveraging Electronic Health Records for Guideline-Based Asthma Documentation.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary MorrisseyHealth Protection Team, Public Health NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Elizabeth ShepherdSioux Lookout First Nations Health Authority, Sioux Lookout, Canada.
Emma KinleyUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kirstie McClatcheyUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Hilary PinnockUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office AUKCAR/19/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReview templates are commonly used in long-term condition (LTC) consultations to standardise care for patients and promote consistent data recording. However, templates may affect interactions during the review and, potentially, inhibit patient-centred care.

aimTo systematically review the literature about the impact that LTC review templates have on process and health outcomes, and the views of health professionals and patients on using review templates in consultations. DESIGN AND

settingParallel qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews.

methodFollowing Cochrane methodology, nine databases were searched (1995-2019; updated July 2020) for clinical trials and qualitative studies of LTC templates in healthcare settings. Duplicate selection, risk-of-bias assessment, and data extraction were performed. The quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted in parallel, and findings synthesised narratively.

resultsIn total, 12 qualitative and 14 quantitative studies were included (two studies reported both qualitative and quantitative data, and were included in both analyses). Review templates were well used, but the only study to assess health outcomes showed no effect. Templates can improve documentation of key measures and act as a reminder tool; however, they can restrict the review process, and risk health professionals' agendas being prioritised over those of patients. Templates may also limit opportunities to discuss individuals' concerns about living with their condition and act as a barrier to providing patient-centred care.

conclusionFuture research should evaluate health, as well as process, outcomes. The potential benefits of templates in improving documentation should be balanced against concerns that 'tick boxes' may override patient agendas, unless templates are designed to promote patient-centred care.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelPatient-Centered CareBiasHumansPerceptionQualitative Researchchronic conditionsdelivery of health carelong-term conditionspatient-centred careprimary carereview templates

Identifiers

PMID33690148
PMCPMC8321439
OpenAlexW3135487626

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.