Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128945›Full record

GuidelineBMJ open2023

Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist: an international consensus-based tool to develop, compare and evaluate self-management support programmes.

Timothy Moreels, Ellen Cruyt, Stijn De Baets, Lore Andries, Magelien Arts-Tielemans, Maria Rodriguez-Bailon, Aileen Bergström, Kyara Boete, Iris Bormans, Ursula Costa and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMJ open, 2023. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

30 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Timothy MoreelsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium Timothy.moreels@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0001-9914-3738
Ellen CruytDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Stijn De BaetsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6856-5305
Lore AndriesDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Magelien Arts-TielemansDepartment of Occupational Therapy, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maria Rodriguez-BailonPhysiotherapy (Occupational Therapy), Universidad de Malaga, Malaga, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6658-7658
Aileen BergströmKarolinska Institutet Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kyara BoeteDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Iris BormansDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Ursula CostaOccupational Science, Health University of Applied Science Tyrol, Tyrol, Austria.
Hanne DeclercqDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Sari DekelverDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Virginie DekyvereDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Eva DeloozDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Cynthia EngelsClinical Epidemiology and Ageing Unit, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France.
Sam HelderweirtDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Mike JarreyOccupational Therapy, Artevelde University College, Ghent, Belgium.
Anneleen LenaertsDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Anneleen LeymanDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Kee Hean LimDepartment of Health Sciences, St Mary's Hospital Medical School, London, UK.
Louise MeynenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Ton SatinkDepartment of Occupational Therapy, HAN University of Applied Science, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Freya SchoenmakersDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Daniela SennOccupational Therapy, ZHAW School of Health Professions, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Lise SlembrouckDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Emma Van MeenselDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Dani VangenechtenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Bram Van PaepeghemDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.
Patricia De VriendtDepartment of Gerontology and Frailty in Ageing Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4861-7838
Dominique Van de VeldeDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6982-1075
Ghent University · BEHAN University of Applied Sciences · NLVrije Universiteit Brussel · BEArtevelde University College Ghent · BEGhent University Hospital · BEHealth University of Applied Sciences Tyrol · ATKarolinska Institutet · SESt Mary's Hospital · GBUniversidad de Málaga · ESUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist was developed as a guidance tool to support the development, comparison and evaluation of self-management support programmes for persons with a chronic condition. The checklist was based on a previously performed concept analysis of self-management. The aim of this study was to validate its content using an international Delphi study and to deliver a final version.

designA two-round Delphi study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Using the researchers' networks, professionals with research or clinical expertise in self-management support and chronic conditions were recruited via online purposive snowball sampling. Participants were asked to score each item of the checklist (16 items total) on 3 content validity indicators: (1) clarity and comprehensibility, (2) relevance and importance and (3) degree of alignment with the overall goal of the checklist to promote adequate and comprehensive self-management support programmes. A consensus threshold of 75% agreement was used. The participants were also asked general questions about the checklist as a whole and were asked to provide feedback considering its refinement.

resultsFifty-four professionals with an average 14.5 years of experience participated in round 1, 48 with an average 12.5 years of experience participated in round 2. The majority of professionals were from Western Europe. For the majority of items consensus was reached after round 1. In round 2, 3 of the 4 remaining items reached consensus, 1 last item was retained based on highly recurring feedback.

conclusionsThe SMACC checklist was considered a valid and comprehensive tool to aid the development, evaluation and comparison of self-management support programmes. It was acknowledged as a useful instrument to supplement existing frameworks and was seen as feasible to implement in both research and clinical settings. Further validation in the field, with input from patients and peer experts, will be valuable.

Indexed as

ChecklistSelf-ManagementChronic DiseaseConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansprimary health carequality of lifeself care

Identifiers

PMID38128945
OpenAlexW4390055733

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.