Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34750148›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Development of a self-reported reflective tool on advanced access to support primary healthcare providers: study protocol of a mixed-method research design using an e-Delphi survey.

Mylaine Breton, Isabelle Gaboury, Maxime Sasseville, Christine Beaulieu, Sabina Abou Malham, Catherine Hudon, Isabel Rodrigues, Lara Maillet, Arnaud Duhoux, Nadia Deville-Stoetzel and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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.

Mylaine BretonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Community Health, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada mylaine.breton@usherbrooke.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-5713-9618
Isabelle GabouryDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Universite de Sherbrooke Faculte de medecine et des sciences de la sante, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2881-4714
Maxime SassevilleNursing Faculty, Université Laval, Quebec, Quebec, Canada.
Christine BeaulieuFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.
Sabina Abou MalhamSchool of Nursing Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2885-6807
Catherine HudonFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6140-9916
Isabel RodriguesUniversité de Montréal Faculté de Médecine, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Lara MailletÉcole nationale d'administration publique - ENAP, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6192-183X
Arnaud DuhouxUniversité de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Nadia Deville-StoetzelFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sherbrooke, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7387-6511
Jeannie HaggertyFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTimely access is one of the cornerstones of strong primary healthcare (PHC). New models to increase timely access have emerged across the world, including advanced access (AA). Recently in Quebec, Canada, the AA model has spread widely across the province. The model has largely been implemented by PHC professionals with important variations; however, a tool to assess their practice improvement within AA is lacking. The general objective of this study is to develop a self-reported online reflective tool that will guide PHC professionals' reflection on their individual AA practice and formulation of recommendations for improvement. Specific objectives are: (1) operationalisation of the pillars and subpillars of AA; (2) development of a self-reported questionnaire; and (3) evaluation of the psychometrics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The pillars composing Murray's model of AA will first be reviewed in collaboration with PHC professional and stakeholders, patients and researchers in a face-to-face meeting, with the goal to establish consensus on the pillars and subpillars of AA. Leading from these definitions, items will be identified for evaluation through an e-Delphi consultation. Three rounds are planned in 2020-2021 with a group of 20-25 experts. A repository of recommendations on how to improve one's AA practice will be populated based on the literature and enriched by our experts throughout the consultation. Median and measures of dispersions will be used to evaluate agreement. The resulting tool will then be evaluated by PHC professionals for psychometrics in 2021-2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Centre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Montérégie-Centre Scientific Research Committee approved the protocol, and the Research Ethics Board provided ethics approval (2020-441, CP 980475). Dissemination plan is a mix of community diffusion through and for our partners and to the scientific community including peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareResearch DesignHealth PersonnelHumansSelf ReportSurveys and Questionnairesorganisation of health servicesprimary carequality in healthcare

Identifiers

PMID34750148
PMCPMC8576468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.