ReviewThe British journal of occupational therapy2024
Positive risk-taking within social care for adults with physical disabilities: A review of guidelines in practice in England.
Review in The British journal of occupational therapy, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite practice guidelines, professionals do not feel confident in implementing positive risk-taking. This may be due to the guidance provided. Method: A scoping review of current organisational guidance for the professional practice of positive risk-taking within Adult Social Care services for people with a physical disability. Guidelines were obtained from Local Authorities in England in October 2020. The data were extracted using TIDieR to describe positive risk-taking as an intervention. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. Findings: In all, 36 Local Authorities responded out of 106 contacted. A total of 21 documents were included for review. Substantial variability was found in terminology, definitions and risk grading between documents. The greatest consistency was found in how to implement a positive risk-taking intervention. Consistency was also found in the policy that documents cited. There was little reference to evidence to support intervention components. Overall, AGREE II quality scores were low and stakeholder involvement, specifically with regard to the views and preferences of service users, was largely absent. Conclusion: There is a need for a greater consensus to guide the professional practice of positive risk-taking. Determining the extent of current evidence and establishing an evidence base may facilitate more consistent guidelines and support professionals' confidence in implementing positive risk-taking.
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.