IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0328016.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for those affected by multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review protocol

Author

Listed:
  • Sara Tavares
  • Arad Reisberg
  • David Belsey
  • Ania Henley
  • Laura Downey

Abstract

Background: People living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC) are reported to have poorer quality of life, worse health outcomes, and higher health-related expenses compared to those with singular chronic health conditions. Living with MLTC is associated with a higher risk of care that is duplicate or unnecessary. Understanding and monitoring the quality of care (QoC) for those with MLTC is imperative to ensure that individuals complex care needs are met, maximising health and wellbeing and minimising harm and social/economic burden. There is paucity on what QoC means in the context of MLTC, which is likely different than a mere amalgamation of quality indicators of each contributory condition. There is even less understanding on how QoC can be measured in a way that meets the specific care priorities of individuals with MLTC. The aim of this review is to systematically map and analyse evidence on what QoC means for those affected by MLTC and the content and processes of any existing QoC indicators in MLTC, developed with patient or caregivers. Methods: We will systematically search for evidence following a Levac et al methodological scoping review process. All eligible studies published in English from 2000 onwards in the following databases will be included: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Global Health and Health Management Information Consortium. Given expected study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis is anticipated. Our Community Partner Advisory Group will assist in the identification and analysis of relevant evidence. Discussion: Current evidence shows variations in concepts and approaches when developing, implementing or validating QoC indicators, not always capturing patients’ preferences nor the complex processes required in MLTC care. Clarifying concepts and synthesising evidence-based knowledge in this area will be the first step to inform the development of a project aiming to develop a set of patient-derived QoC indicators for use across multiple settings in the United Kingdom (UK) and beyond. Systematic review registration: Available on Open Science Framework on https://osf.io/gjr84.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara Tavares & Arad Reisberg & David Belsey & Ania Henley & Laura Downey, 2025. "Investigating the content and processes of patient-derived quality of care indicators for those affected by multiple long-term conditions (MLTC): A scoping review protocol," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-8, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0328016
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328016
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0328016&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0328016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0328016. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.