ArticleAnnals of family medicine
Patient-Guided Tours: A Patient-Centered Methodology to Understand Patient Experiences of Health Care.
Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe experience-based design approach using patient-guided tours (PGT) has been suggested as an effective way to understand the patient experience and may better allow the patient to recall thoughts and feelings. The objective of this study was to assess how patients with a disability perceive the effectiveness of PGTs for understanding their experiences of receiving primary health care.
methodsA qualitative study design was used. Participants were chosen by convenience sampling. The patient was asked to walk through the clinic as they would on a "typical visit" while describing their experiences. They were questioned about their experience and perception of PGTs. The tour was audiotaped and transcribed. The investigators took field notes and completed thematic content analysis.
resultsEighteen patients participated. The main findings were: (1) Touchpoints and physical cues were effective in eliciting experiences that participants stated they would not have recalled using other research methods, (2) The ability for participants to show the investigator aspects of the space that impacted their experience enabled the investigator to "see through their eyes" resulting in ease of communication and a sense of empowerment, (3) PGTs encouraged individuals to be active participants which fostered comfort and collaboration, and (4) PGTs may exclude those that are severely disabled.
conclusionThis method was perceived as effective at eliciting experiences of patients with a disability. It has benefits over more traditional research methods by allowing the participant to refresh their memory at "touchpoints" and enabling them to be active participants.
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.