ArticleBMC primary care2026
Development of a guidance to improve allied primary healthcare after acquired brain injury in the Netherlands - a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC primary care, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe organisation of primary care for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) and collaboration in primary care rehabilitation requires improvement. Based on previous research, aimed at improving post-stroke care pathways, this study focuses on the development of guidance for the Netherlands that addresses three key areas: (1) the knowledge and skills of occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and speech and language therapists working in primary care rehabilitation for people with ABI; (2) collaboration in regional primary care networks to deliver appropriate care at the right time and in the right place; and (3) strategies to enhance the visibility and accessibility of suitable therapists for patients with ABI and their professional care providers within primary care.
methodsA mixed-methods design was employed, guided by the principles of improvement science and in accordance with the Advisory and Expert Group on Quality Standards (AQUA) guideline. The process was structured in three phases: preparation, research, and development. The data were collected through a combination of methods, including interviews and a narrative review. The results of the interviews and narrative review were used to create items for the Delphi study, which were then discussed with expert groups and led to the development of the guidance. Furthermore, input from multiple expert groups was sought throughout the entire process.
resultsTwenty-three interviews were conducted and subsequently analysed. The narrative review was based on 23 relevant articles. The Delphi study reached 95% consensus in two rounds. The need for expertise in ABI treatment, interdisciplinary collaboration, transparent communication, and enhanced accessibility to specialised care, particularly in rural areas, were identified as the most important topics.
conclusionsA Dutch national guidance aimed at improving primary care rehabilitation for people with ABI was developed successfully through an iterative process. The guidance contains practical tips and advice for allied health professionals.
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.