ArticlePloS one2025
Investigating the content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for those affected by multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) are reported to have poorer quality of life, worse health outcomes, and higher health-related expenses compared to those with singular chronic health conditions. Living with MLTC is associated with a higher risk of care that is duplicate or unnecessary. Understanding and monitoring the quality of care (QoC) for those with MLTC is imperative to ensure that individuals complex care needs are met, maximising health and wellbeing and minimising harm and social/economic burden. There is paucity on what QoC means in the context of MLTC, which is likely different than a mere amalgamation of quality indicators of each contributory condition. There is even less understanding on how QoC can be measured in a way that meets the specific care priorities of individuals with MLTC. The aim of this review is to systematically map and analyse evidence on what QoC means for those affected by MLTC and the content and processes of any existing QoC indicators in MLTC, developed with patient or caregivers.
methodsWe will systematically search for evidence following a Levac et al methodological scoping review process. All eligible studies published in English from 2000 onwards in the following databases will be included: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Global Health and Health Management Information Consortium. Given expected study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis is anticipated. Our Community Partner Advisory Group will assist in the identification and analysis of relevant evidence. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows variations in concepts and approaches when developing, implementing or validating QoC indicators, not always capturing patients' preferences nor the complex processes required in MLTC care. Clarifying concepts and synthesising evidence-based knowledge in this area will be the first step to inform the development of a project aiming to develop a set of patient-derived QoC indicators for use across multiple settings in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Available on Open Science Framework on https://osf.io/gjr84.
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.