ArticleBJGP open2025
Impact of a comprehensive review template on personalised care in general practice for patients with multiple long-term conditions: a mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care is in urgent need of more effective and efficient ways of managing the care of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs; multimorbidity). Personalised care organised around an individual's needs and conditions, taking account of individual context and priorities and supporting self-management, may offer an improved approach.
aimTo explore the impact of a computerised template to support personalised care for patients with MLTCs within the context of routinely applied general practice. DESIGN &
settingA convergent mixed-methods evaluation design. General practices were recruited from three areas of England: Bristol, Southampton, and Staffordshire.
methodA computerised template for the review of MLTCs was made available to all general practices subscribing to a commercial template supplier. Implementation practices were supported to conduct personalised multimorbidity reviews. We used routine clinical data from implementation and control practices, a before-and-after patient questionnaire, and qualitative interviews with general practice staff and patients to evaluate the impact of the intervention.
resultsThirty-two general practices were recruited, of which half were implementation practices. Using the multimorbidity template has potential to improve quality of care and patient benefit with no increase in consultation numbers. Patients received a more complete assessment of their needs with a clearer focus on the problems that matter most to them. Conducting multimorbidity reviews can increase burden on nursing staff and consideration is required as to the organisation of reviews and appropriate training for nursing staff.
conclusionUse of the multimorbidity template needs to be supported by staff training, adequate practice capacity, support for system reorganisation, and attention to incentives to facilitate its benefits.
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.