ArticleBMC health services research2025
Multi-stakeholder validation of an evidence-based core set of quality indicators for IBD in Belgium.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionQuality indicators assess and can improve care. Previous efforts used different methods to identify quality indicators for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care in Belgium. This study aimed to critically evaluate these efforts and establish a validated, multi-stakeholder consensus on an evidence-based quality indicator set.
methodsA focus group with consensus methodology experts (n = 8) evaluated prior exercises (one modified Delphi method and one with a pragmatic approach). Two additional focus groups with healthcare providers (n = 7) and patients (n = 5) reviewed findings and identified missing quality indicators. A consensus meeting (including 3 methodology experts, 4 patients, 2 IBD nurses, 6 IBD physicians) validated the final set.
resultsParticipants agreed on the complementary nature of prior exercises but identified limitations, including the need for pre-prioritization, the core team composition, and suboptimal patient involvement. Missing indicators included one patient-reported outcome (mental health) and three patient-reported experience measures (satisfaction with care, patient-gastroenterologist dialogue, and therapy satisfaction). Consensus was reached on 37 indicators: 3 structure, 11 process, and 23 outcome indicators. These covered patient-reported outcomes/experiences, care team and clinic services, hospital service use and survival, care pathways, patient and disease characteristics, medication, steroid use, infection prevention, disease monitoring, and endoscopy guidelines.
conclusionTwo complementary exercises yielded unique insights into IBD quality indicators. Reflective focus groups and a consensus meeting identified 37 validated quality indicators with broad stakeholder agreement. Future work should focus on translating these quality indicators into clinical practice and assessing feasibility.
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.