Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36585696›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

How a point-of-care dashboard facilitates co-production of health care and health for and with individuals with psychotic disorders: a mixed-methods case study.

Andreas Gremyr, Christopher Holmberg, Johan Thor, Ulf Malm, Boel Andersson Gäre, Ann-Christine Andersson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas GremyrDepartment of Psychotic Disorders, Sahlgrenska University, Hospital, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset Psykiatri Psykos, Göteborgsvägen 31, 431 80, Mölndal, Sweden. andreas.gremyr@vgregion.se.
Christopher HolmbergDepartment of Psychotic Disorders, Sahlgrenska University, Hospital, Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset Psykiatri Psykos, Göteborgsvägen 31, 431 80, Mölndal, Sweden.
Johan ThorJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, 55111, Jönköping, Sweden.
Ulf MalmSahlgrenska Academy at Gothenburg University, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Box 400, 40530, Göteborg, Sweden.
Boel Andersson GäreJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, 55111, Jönköping, Sweden.
Ann-Christine AnderssonJönköping Academy for Improvement of Health and Welfare, School of Health and Welfare, Jönköping University, Barnarpsgatan 39, 55111, Jönköping, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SEFuturum - Akademin för Hälsa och VårdJönköping University · SEMalmö University · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndividuals with psychotic disorders experience widespread treatment failures and risk early death. Sweden's largest department specializing in psychotic disorders sought to improve patients' health by developing a point-of-care dashboard to support joint planning and co-production of care. The dashboard was tested for 18 months and included more than 400 patients at two outpatient clinics.

methodsThis study evaluates the dashboard by addressing two questions: 1) Can differences in health-related outcome measures be attributed to the use of the dashboard? 2) How did the case managers experience the accessibility, use, and usefulness of the dashboard for co-producing care with individuals with psychotic disorders? This mixed-method case study used both Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) and data from a focus group interview with case managers. Data collection and analysis were framed by the Clinical Adoption Meta Model (CAMM) phases: i) accessibility, ii) system use, iii) behavior, and iv) clinical outcomes. The PROM used was the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), which assesses functional impairment and disability. Patients at clinics using the dashboard were matched with patients at clinics not using the dashboard. PROM data were compared using non-parametric statistics due to skewness in distribution. The focus group included five case managers who had experience using the dashboard with patients.

resultsCompared to patients from clinics that did not use the dashboard, patients from clinics that did use the dashboard improved significantly overall (p = 0.045) and in the domain self-care (p = 0.041). Focus group participants reported that the dashboard supported data feedback-informed care and a proactive stance related to changes in patients' health. The dashboard helped users identify critical changes and enabled joint planning and evaluation.

conclusionDashboard use was related to better patient health (WHODAS scores) when compared with matched patients from clinics that did not use the dashboard. In addition, case managers had a positive experience using the dashboard. Dashboard use might have lowered the risk for missing critical changes in patients' health while increasing the ability to proactively address needs. Future studies should investigate how to enhance patient co-production through use of supportive technologies.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsPsychotic DisordersAmbulatory Care FacilitiesDelivery of Health CareFeedbackHumansCoproductionLearning health systemsPsychosisSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID36585696
PMCPMC9803257
OpenAlexW4313410162

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.