ArticleBMJ open2025
Improving collaborative care networks for functional disorders and persistent somatic symptoms: a participatory action research study in the Netherlands.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders are conditions requiring a biopsychosocial approach to care, often from multiple professionals. The fragmentation of care common in most health systems results in unsatisfactory and challenging care experiences. Collaborative care networks form an important route towards improving outcomes and the overall experience of care for patients and professionals. While we have a good idea of what such collaborative care networks can look like, we lack knowledge on the practicalities of implementing change in such networks.
objectivesThe core objective of this study is to implement change in a collaborative care network for persistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders care. Our questions were twofold: first, what are examples of realistic action processes to improve such collaborative care networks? Second, what are, in our experience, conditions for an effective change process in such a collaborative care network?
designParticipatory action research approach embedded within an active regional network between May 2023 and May 2024. The process was led by an action group who selected objectives and related actions with the aim of improving the network, leading to better care for people with persistent somatic symptoms and functional disorders as well as improving satisfaction among professionals.
setting
participantsThe action group was made up of local stakeholders including experts-by-experience and health and social care professionals, facilitated by a researcher-in-residence. Other participants included members of the regional network who provided input towards the different objectives.
resultsOver the course of a year, three objectives were selected and enacted, including assessing the resources of the network, improving knowledge of treatment options and improving the shared vision of care. The process faced some challenges, such as changes in action group members and a lack of resources and time to enact changes. However, by having a trusted and engaged team, working with an active network, we were able to enact significant changes to the network, which may be sustained and built on through the ongoing action group.
conclusionsFuture participatory action research studies would benefit from a trusted and embedded researcher-in-residence, meaningful involvement early in the process of experts-by-experience, and serious consideration of realistic outcome measures to monitor for evaluation of changes made.
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.