Title |
Qualitative systematic reviews of treatment burden in stroke, heart failure and diabetes - Methodological challenges and solutions
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2013
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2288-13-10 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Katie Gallacher, Bhautesh Jani, Deborah Morrison, Sara Macdonald, David Blane, Patricia Erwin, Carl R May, Victor M Montori, David T Eton, Fiona Smith, David G Batty, Frances S Mair |
Abstract |
Treatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 4 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Members of the public | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 1% |
Portugal | 1 | <1% |
New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Denmark | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 163 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 36 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 13% |
Student > Master | 21 | 12% |
Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 9 | 5% |
Other | 34 | 20% |
Unknown | 38 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 29% |
Social Sciences | 20 | 12% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 7% |
Psychology | 11 | 6% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 3% |
Other | 24 | 14% |
Unknown | 48 | 28% |