Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34964215›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

Assessing the efficacy of coproduction to better understand the barriers to achieving sustainability in NHS chronic kidney services and create alternate pathways.

Leah Mc Laughlin, Gail Williams, Gareth Roberts, David Dallimore, David Fellowes, Joanne Popham, Joanna Charles, James Chess, Sarah Hirst Williams, Jonathan Mathews and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Assessing the efficacy of coproduction to better understand the barriers to achieving sustainability in NHS chronic kidney services and create alternate pathways.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

14 authors.

Leah Mc LaughlinSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0185-6639
Gail WilliamsWelsh Renal Clinical Network, Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, Pontypridd, Wales, UK.
Gareth RobertsCardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
David DallimoreSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4557-8186
David FellowesPatient Representative, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Joanne PophamPaul Popham Fund, Renal Support Wales, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Joanna CharlesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor, Wales, UK.
James ChessSwansea Bay University Health Board, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Sarah Hirst WilliamsBetsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Bangor, Wales, UK.
Jonathan MathewsWelsh Renal Clinical Network, Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, Pontypridd, Wales, UK.
Teri HowellsPatient Representative, Swansea, Wales, UK.
Judith StoneKidney Wales Foundation, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Linzi IsaacKidney Care UK, Alton, UK.
Jane NoyesSchool of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4238-5984

Funding

HCRW_ RFPPB-17-1423(T)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextToo many people living with chronic kidney disease are opting for and starting on hospital-based dialysis compared to a home-based kidney replacement therapy. Dialysis services are becoming financially unsustainable.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the efficacy of coproductive research in chronic kidney disease service improvement to achieve greater sustainability.

designA 2-year coproductive service improvement study was conducted with multiple stakeholders with the specific intention of maximizing engagement with the national health kidney services, patients and public. SETTING AND

participantsA national health kidney service (3 health boards, 18 dialysis units), patients and families (n = 50), multidisciplinary teams including doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, and so forth (n = 68), kidney charities, independent dialysis service providers and wider social services were part of this study.

findingsCoproductive research identified underutilized resources (e.g., patients on home dialysis and social services) and their potential, highlighted unmet social care needs for patients and families and informed service redesign. Education packages were reimagined to support the home dialysis agenda including opportunities for wider service input. The impacts of one size fits all approaches to dialysis on specialist workforce skills were made clearer and also professional, patient and public perceptions of key sustainability policies. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsPatient and key stakeholders mapped out new ways to link services to create more sustainable models of kidney health and social care. Maintaining principles of knowledge coproduction could help achieve financial sustainability and move towards more prudent adult chronic kidney disease services. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Involved in developing research questions, study design, management and conduct, interpretation of evidence and dissemination.

Indexed as

PhysiciansState MedicineAdultHumansKidneyRenal DialysisSocial Supportcoproductiondialysisfamilykidney diseasepatientservice improvement studysustainability

Identifiers

PMID34964215
PMCPMC8957730

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.