Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37558439›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway.

Sarah Jasim, Fiona Aspinal, Raj Mehta, Jean Ledger, Rosalind Raine, Naomi J Fulop, Helen Barratt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah JasimCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK s.jasim@lse.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3940-6350
Fiona AspinalDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-7570
Raj MehtaDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Jean LedgerDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Rosalind RaineDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Naomi J FulopDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5306-6140
Helen BarrattDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1387-137X
University College London · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway.

designThree qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021.

settingElective TJA surgery in the English NHS.

participantsTwo focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels.

resultsFourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances.

conclusionThe linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedState MedicineUnited KingdomHipKneeOrthopaedic & trauma surgeryQUALITATIVE RESEARCHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID37558439
PMCPMC10414077
OpenAlexW4385699855

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.