ArticleBMJ open2026
Defining complex case management in the UK: a modified Delphi approach.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo conduct a Delphi study to develop a consensus-based definition of complex case management within the UK context. SETTING AND
participantsThis study was conducted with members of the British Association of Brain Injury and Complex Case Management (BABICM).
designA methodological approach informed by a modified Delphi design was employed, incorporating expert focus groups and two rounds of questionnaires distributed to members of the BABICM.Initial focus groups (n=2) with eight expert case managers generated themes which were used to create a draft definition. Five definitions-four existing and one newly developed definition-were reviewed and refined through two rounds of online questionnaires. The top two definitions in round 1 were retained for round 2 (with no refinement required based on qualitative responses). The final definition was agreed-on when consensus was reached ≥80% agreement.
resultsIn round 1, 130 (10.8% of the 1200-member population) BABICM members ranked five definitions and provided qualitative feedback. Based on round 1 rankings, two definitions were retained for round 2. Definition 4, developed through expert focus groups, was ranked as the most preferred in round 1 (60%) and round 2 (85%), thus meeting the consensus threshold. The final definition emphasised collaborative, tailored support across systems, advocacy and person-centred care for clients and their families.
conclusionsThis study provides a consensus-based definition of complex case management in the UK, reflecting the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the role. The definition offers a foundation for standardising practice, informing training and guiding future research and policy development.
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.