ArticleBMJ open2026
The self-management support needs of people diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis: a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPsoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a form of inflammatory arthritis linked to psoriasis. Previous research from the UK has found that many people feel unsupported when diagnosed with PsA and lack confidence in managing their condition. This realist review aims to understand what works and does not work for whom and in what circumstances, in relation to healthcare professionals engaging with people to support them in developing self-management skills. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol was developed by defining the scope of the review, using a brief directed literature review to support discussion by an expert group of researchers, healthcare professionals and a patient partner. A theoretical domains framework was generated, consisting of nine initial programme theories. These were further refined with input from Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement groups and used to develop a database search strategy.A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare and APA PsycINFO will be carried out, supplemented by citation tracking, exploration of grey literature and a mixed methods survey of rheumatology health professionals. Data selection will be performed by a minimum of two reviewers and data from included sources will be extracted using a template. Data will be synthesised narratively with respect to the identified initial programme theories, using these data to refine or refute these theories. This will generate refined programme theories to explain what works for whom and in what circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the health professionals survey was granted through the Research Ethics Committee, University of the West of England (Project ID: 10991848). Outputs will be disseminated to the research community through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed journal article. The strategy for sharing outputs with patients and health professionals will be discussed and agreed with knowledge user groups.
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.