Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38131202›Full record

ReviewJournal of feline medicine and surgery2023

Recasting the gold standard - part II of II: communicating healthcare options along a continuum of care.

Ryane E Englar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Breaking down the barriers to accessible veterinary care.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2024
    Article
  8. 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

1 author.

Ryane E EnglarUniversity of Arizona College of Veterinary Medicine, Oro Valley, AZ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7184-4978

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

series outlineThis is the second part of a two-part series on spectrum of care that encourages practitioners to tailor case management to the patient along a continuum of acceptable options. Part I defined the spectrum of care and broadened its approach beyond initial cost-of-care considerations. This second article introduces strategies for initiating conversations with clients about their needs, wants and expectations specific to healthcare options and case management decisions. It will explore how open inquiry, reflective listening, transparency and unconditional positive regard facilitate dialogue between providers and their clients as they collaborate on decision-making along a spectrum of care. RELEVANCE: Contextual case management prioritizes interventions that are appropriate for both the patient and the client. To identify and explore which healthcare options represent the best fit for those impacted most by medical decisions, veterinarians need to make space for clients to feel comfortable sharing their perspectives. Clients are more likely to be engaged in decision-making when their insight is actively solicited. They have much to share with us as experts about their cat's overall health and wellness needs. Inviting clients to contribute to the consultation and being receptive to hearing what motivates their choices helps us to structure conversations around healthcare options. The ability to communicate healthcare options is as vital as the provision of healthcare, if not more so.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareVeterinariansAnimalsCatsContinuity of Patient CareHumansactive listeningcommunicationperspective seekingperspective takingreflective listeningregardrelationship-centered careSpectrum of caretransparencyunconditional positive regard

Identifiers

PMID38131202
PMCPMC10811761

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.