ArticleBMJ open2022
Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2022Review
- Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-centred care can be facilitated by co-design, which refers to collaboration between healthcare professionals and consumers in producing and implementing healthcare. Systematic reviews on co-design have mainly focused on the effectiveness of co-produced healthcare interventions. Less attention has been directed towards the experiences of patients in co-designed interventions. This rapid review aims to explore patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions and inform rehabilitation decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A rapid review will expedite timely information on co-design experiences for stakeholders. Four electronic databases, including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomised trials. Critical appraisal checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute shall evaluate the risk of bias of non-randomised trials and qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be provided for the quantitative studies. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on qualitative findings. The overall strength of the evidence will be measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for quantitative investigations and the GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative studies. The results will be presented using narrative summaries, identified themes, summary tables, flow charts and quantitative statistical analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. The protocol and rapid review will be submitted to an online, open access and peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review findings will be rapidly translated to consumers, clinicians, healthcare leaders, organisations, researchers and policy makers via publications, evidence summaries, conferences, workshops, websites, social media and online events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.
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.