| Title |
A computer template to enhance patient-centredness in multimorbidity reviews: a qualitative evaluation in primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
British Journal of General Practice, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3399/bjgp18x696353 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cindy Mann, Alison Shaw, Lesley Wye, Chris Salisbury, Bruce Guthrie |
| Abstract |
Computer templates for review of single long-term conditions are commonly used to record care processes, but they may inhibit communication and prevent patients from discussing their wider concerns. To evaluate the effect on patient-centredness of a novel computer template used in multimorbidity reviews. A qualitative process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial in 33 GP practices in England and Scotland examining the implementation of a patient-centred complex intervention intended to improve management of multimorbidity. A purpose-designed computer template combining long-term condition reviews was used to support the patient-centred intervention. Twenty-eight reviews using the intervention computer template and nine usual-care reviews were observed and recorded. Sixteen patient interviews, four patient focus groups, and 23 clinician interviews were also conducted in eight of the 12 intervention practices. Transcripts were thematically analysed based on predefined core components of patient-centredness and template use. Disrupted communication was more evident in intervention reviews because the template was unfamiliar, but the first template question about patients' important health issues successfully elicited wide-ranging health concerns. Patients welcomed the more holistic, comprehensive reviews, and some unmet healthcare needs were identified. Most clinicians valued identifying patients' agendas, but some felt it diverted attention from care of long-term conditions. Goal-setting was GP-led rather than collaborative. Including patient-centred questions in long-term condition review templates appears to improve patients' perceptions about the patient-centredness of reviews, despite template demands on a clinician's attention. Adding an initial question in standardised reviews about the patient's main concerns should be considered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 10 | 48% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Chile | 1 | 5% |
| Japan | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 62% |
| Scientists | 6 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,622,588
of 24,313,168 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,236
of 4,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,121
of 334,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#36
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,313,168 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.