Trial reportPloS one2022
Enhancing human aspects of care with young people with muscular dystrophy: An evaluation of a participatory qualitative study with clinicians.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis paper evaluates a study which aimed to enhance clinical care of young people with Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy (MD) and their families in two Canadian neuromuscular clinics. We report on how/why the study changed clinical practices in relation to the 'human' (e.g., emotional, social, existential, cultural) dimensions of living with MD. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe intervention involved regular dialogical exchanges with clinicians across the two sites, during which direct observations of the clinics' care practices were discussed and changes were planned. We drew from realist evaluation approaches to assess changes in clinical care associated with the intervention. Data sources included dialogical exchanges; clinic observations; interviews with clients, families and clinicians; and team analysis sessions.
resultsOur evaluation suggests the clinical teams shifted their thinking and practices towards greater consideration of human aspects of living with MD including: more routinely attending to emotional, social and experiential dimensions of living with MD; reconceptualisation of risk; and considerations of affective aspects of clinical care. Not all clinicians changed their thinking and practices in the same ways, or to the same extent, and there were differences between the sites. These differences were likely due to numerous factors, including varying levels of clinician comfort with examining and shifting their own practices, and differing formal and informal clinic routines at each site.
conclusionsOverall, this intervention was able to shift clinic practices, and could feasibly be adapted across rehabilitation settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.