ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Extended Consultations as a Trial Intervention in General Practice: Experiences of Patients with Complex Multimorbidities.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multimorbidity poses significant challenges for healthcare systems worldwide, particularly for patients with complex multimorbidity (CMM). The Complex Intervention for Multimorbidity version 2 (CIM2) was designed to enhance integrated patient-centered care. Aim: This qualitative study aimed to explore patients' experiences with the CIM2 intervention, focusing on their perceptions of extended consultations and identifying factors that influenced their experiences, which were either beneficial or challenging. Methods: This is a qualitative evaluation conducted as a part of the CIM2 intervention, drawing on data from 13 semi-structured interviews with patients with CMM. Eight of the interviews included the patients' spouses. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Three patients found the extension beneficial, appreciating the increased time for discussions and feeling genuinely heard by their GPs. Two patients perceived partial benefit, valuing the extra time but finding the consultation similar to regular appointments. However, six patients experienced no benefit, citing unclear communication about the consultation purpose, a lack of continuity when seen by an unfamiliar GP, and superficial interactions despite the extended time. Two patients did not recall attending the extended consultations. Discussion: Although some patients appreciated the extra time and personalized attention, others found the consultations confusing, superficial, or indistinguishable from regular visits. Crucial factors influencing benefits included clear communication about the consultation's purpose, being heard and understood, and continuity with familiar GPs. Notably, those with the most fragmented care and highest treatment burden often derived the least benefit. These findings underscore the importance of better communication, preparation, and continuity. Conclusion: Although some patients with complex multimorbidity valued extended consultation time, time alone proved insufficient to ensure meaningful care experiences. Better communication regarding the purpose of the consultation and patient preparation was essential to improving the overall quality and relevance of the encounter.
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.