ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
The PET@home Toolkit: A Process Evaluation Study.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Dutch PET@home Toolkit was developed to mitigate challenges, foster conversations, and support planning concerning pets in long-term care at home. This process evaluation study aimed to evaluate the practical application of the toolkit on four topics: (1) satisfaction; (2) relevance; (3) feasibility; and (4) integration of the PET@home Toolkit materials in home care. Outcomes may be used to improve the toolkit materials to better align with the long-term care at home setting. Accounting for data saturation, professional caregivers (N = 6), clients (N = 2), and family caregivers (N = 2) who used toolkit materials participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analyzed by two researchers in ATLAS.ti using an inductive-iterative approach. The researchers reached a consensus on themes and clustering within interview topics. This led to the identification of the following themes pertaining to each interview topic: satisfaction (general impression, suggestions for improvement); relevance (awareness, planning, pet-related aspects in practice, impact on healthcare quality); feasibility (healthcare practice, competence, quantity); and implementation (digitalization, task owner, piloting, timing). Several improvements were made to toolkit materials, such as providing clearer instructions for clients in the information booklet. Participants acknowledged the toolkit could lead to better planning while mitigating potential challenges concerning pets, which may lead to longer-lasting relationships between clients and their pets.
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.