ArticleBMJ open2021
Urgent assessment and ongoing care for infection in community-dwelling older people: a qualitative study of patient experience.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the experience of infection from the perspective of community-dwelling older people, including access and preferences for place of care.
designQualitative interview study, carried out between March 2017 and August 2018.
settingAmbulatory care units in Oxfordshire, UK.
participantsAdults >70 years with a clinical diagnosis of infection.
methodsSemistructured interviews based on a flexible topic guide. Participants were given the option to be interviewed with their caregiver. Thematic analysis was facilitated by NVivo V.11.
resultsParticipants described encountering several barriers when accessing an urgent healthcare assessment which were hard to negotiate when they felt unwell. They valued home comforts and independence if they received care for their infection at home, though were worried about burdening their family. Most talked about hospital admission being a necessity in the context of more severe illness. Perceived advantages included monitoring, availability of treatments and investigations. However, some recognised that admission put them at risk of a hospital-acquired infection. Ambulatory care was felt to be convenient if local, but daily transport was challenging.
conclusionsProviders may need to think about protocols and targeted advice that could improve access for older people to urgent healthcare when they feel unwell. General practitioners making decisions about place of care may need to better communicate risks associated with the available options and think about balancing convenience with facilities for care.
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.