Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35607998›Full record

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

Assessment of functioning in Dutch primary care: Development study of a consultation tool for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity.

Simone Postma, Henk Schers, Tom van de Belt, Kees van Boven, Huib Ten Napel, Hugo Stappers, Debby Gerritsen, Tim Olde Hartman

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessment of functioning in Dutch primary care: Development study of a consultation tool for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Simone PostmaDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8999-7481
Henk SchersDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tom van de BeltRadboud REshape Innovation Center, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Kees van BovenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Huib Ten NapelDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hugo StappersDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Debby GerritsenDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Tim Olde HartmanDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn primary care, a shift from a disease-oriented approach for patients with multimorbidity towards a more person-centred approach is needed.

aimTo transform a self-report questionnaire for patients with chronic conditions in primary care, the Primary Care Functioning Scale (PCFS), into an understandable, visually attractive and feasible consultation tool for patients and health care providers. The consultation tool consists of a web-based version of the PCFS, which is filled in by the patient and is processed to a feedback report that summarizes and visualizes the main findings. The feedback report can be discussed with the patient to facilitate a more person-centred conversation for patients with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in general practice. DESIGN AND

settingIn this qualitative study, we developed the consultation tool by using design thinking in a participatory developmental process.

methodsIn the first phase, we constructed five different feedback report templates to summarize and display the results of a completed PCFS questionnaire in a series of two expert meetings with patients and general practitioners (GPs). In the second phase, we performed an exploratory qualitative interview study involving dyads of patients with chronic conditions and their practice nurses. In an iterative process, we explored their experiences with the consultation tool.

resultsPatients, as well as GPs, preferred a clear manner of presenting the results of the questionnaire in a feedback report. In 18 interviews with patients and practice nurses during three different interview rounds, we adjusted the feedback report and consultation tool based on the input from patients and practice nurses. After the final interview round, patients and practice nurses consented that the consultation tool was useful for having a more in-depth consultation about functioning and patients' preferences when integrated into the regularly scheduled consultations.

conclusionWe were able to develop an understandable and feasible consultation tool that is applicable in already existing chronic disease management programmes in general practice in the Netherlands. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: To increase the understandability and feasibility of the consultation tool, we collaborated with end-users and actively involved patients, GPs and practice nurses in a participatory development process.

Indexed as

Chronic DiseaseHealth Status IndicatorsMultimorbidityPatient-Centered CarePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationGeneral PractitionersHumansInternet-Based InterventionNetherlandsNurse PractitionersPatient ParticipationProfessional-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchSelf Reportconsultation tooldesign thinkingdisability and healthInternational Classification of Functioningmultimorbidityparticipatory development processprimary care

Identifiers

PMID35607998
PMCPMC9327861

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.