Skip to main content
Download PDF

Self-management support in flemish primary care practice: the development of a preliminary conceptual model using a qualitative approach

BMC Primary Care volume 23, Article number: 63 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Coping with a chronic disease can be really challenging. Self-management represents a promising strategy to improve daily life experiences. The role of primary healthcare professionals cannot be underestimated in supporting self-management. Due to a shortage of theory, implementation of self-management support is hindered in primary care practice. The aim of this study is to create a conceptual model for self-management support by analysing patients’ care experiences towards self-management support.

Methods

An explorative-descriptive qualitative study was conducted in Flanders, Belgium. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 16 patients and their informal caregiver (dyads) using a purposive sampling strategy and processed by an inductive content analysis, according to Graneheim and Lundman.

Results

Interviews revealed in-depth insights into patients’ care experiences. A conceptual model was developed for primary care practice, including five fundamental tasks for healthcare professionals - Supporting, Involving, Listening, Coordinating and Questioning (SILCQ) – contributing to the support of self-management of chronic patients.

Conclusions

This qualitative paper emphasises the use of the SILCQ-model to develop optimal roadmaps and hands-on toolkits for healthcare professionals to support self-management. The model needs to be further explored by all stakeholders to support the development of self-management interventions in primary care practice.

Peer Review reports

Background

There is a growing number of people worldwide living with multiple chronic conditions [1, 2]. Approximately one on three adults has to face the challenges of living with multimorbidity [3]. In Europe, this number of people is estimated at more than 50 million [4]. Chronic conditions are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as long standing and slowly deteriorating diseases [5]. Due to this chronic character, the impact on a patient’s daily life cannot be underestimated.

The consequences of chronic diseases are generally reflected in limited capacity, reduced functionality and productivity, reduced quality of life and increased healthcare costs [6, 7]. As a result, chronic diseases require intensive management. Multiple interventions have been developed in order to support people with chronic diseases [7,8,9]. Key roles are mainly reserved for the healthcare professionals and the social environment of the patient [10,11,12,13,14] but even more important in the care process is the role of the patient himself [15]. By taking charge of their own chronic diseases, patients fully commit in their own care [16]. This responsibility helps them to function in daily life activities, to experience interdependency throughout the care process, and offers the possibility to optimize patient’s own care [17]. In addition, taking charge of their own health contributes to the development of self-management [18].

Self-management is defined as “the individual’s ability to manage the symptoms, treatment, physical and psychosocial consequences and lifestyle changes inherent in living with a chronic condition” (Barlow et al. 2002) [19]. Patients can be assisted in this process of taking ownership by healthcare professionals. Health care systems are gradually changing as to support these professionals in taking up this role. This change is defined as “the process of making and refining multi-level changes in healthcare systems (and the community) to facilitate patients self-management” (Glasgow et al. 2003) [20]. Self-management support implies intensive cooperation among patients, healthcare professionals and the healthcare system [21]. Primary healthcare professionals are well-positioned to help patients developing the ability of self-management, since primary care often serves as the first point of contact in the care system [22]. They have the opportunity to encourage patients to take part in their own care process. As a result, patients feel empowered and can actively be involved in their health care [23,24,25].

Several models have been developed to guide self-management support interventions for patients with chronic conditions. For example, the WISE-model (Thompson et al., 2018) aims to support patients by focussing on active counselling by trained healthcare practitioners [26]. The model seeks to encourage practices to incorporate patient-centred care. The five A’s Model (Glasgow et al., 2003) also focusses on patient counselling [20]. In this model the creation of a personal action plan informed by 5 A’s elements (i.e., assess, advise, agree, assist and arrange) is central, which is considered as essential to facilitate patient self-management [20]. Various other approaches to self-management support are presented in literature. In 2017, the strategic international chronic condition self-management support framework (Mills et al.) formulated guiding principles and strategic directions prior to the establishment of self-management support initiatives [27]. A comparative overview for different support frameworks exists and aims to create a platform for researchers to operationalise frameworks (O’connell et al., 2018) [28].

Although they are designed to be applicable in primary care practice, self-management support interventions are not yet optimal in use and their effectiveness is questioned [29,30,31,32]. The models and frameworks described in literature tend to focus on the implementation of self-management support rather than on underlying mechanisms, such as the interaction between healthcare professionals and their patients. However, understanding these mechanisms is of great importance in effective self-management support [33].

In addition, existing models are drawn up by researchers based on cooperation with healthcare professionals, instead of with patients. Since patients act as equal partners in a collaboration on shared responsibility [34], the importance of involving them in research cannot be underestimated. More insights are required to explore patients’ experiences towards this partnership to self-manage a chronic condition [25]. Therefore, there is a need to investigate not only the underlying mechanisms that help people to self-manage a chronic condition, but also to listen to the voice of the patients themselves. These understandings should supplement insights from existing models and orientate the further development of new self-management support interventions.

This study offers an exploratory view on patient’s self-management and on the support by primary healthcare professionals. The aim is to create a conceptual model for self-management support by analysing patients’ experiences. The research question addressed in this study is, “What do we learn from patients’ care experiences about the interaction with care professionals related to self-management support?”. This study is part of a larger research project of the Primary Care Academy (PCA) that aims to explore patients’ experiences towards primary care in Flanders (Belgium).

Methods

Study design

This qualitative study explored experiences of chronic patients and their informal caregivers, so called dyads, with primary healthcare in Flanders. The aim of the study was to explore specific experiences regarding self-management support by healthcare professionals. For this purpose, a qualitative content approach was used to analyse the transcripts (Graneheim et al., 2017) [35].

Study participants

The dyads were purposively sampled. The inclusion criteria applied to the patients and were defined based on the definition of patients with complex care needs operationalized by Iglesias [36] and adapted to the specific research question. We did not set out specific criteria for the informal caregivers.

Inclusion criteria

The interviewed patients were purposively recruited and had to meet all the following criteria: (1) aged 18 years or above, (2) suffering from a single severe chronic condition or two or more stable chronic conditions (defined as multimorbidity), and (3) receiving support from at least three primary healthcare disciplines, in addition to the support of an informal caregiver.

To achieve a heterogeneous maximal variation sample, the patients had to meet one of the following additional criteria: (1) taking four or more different medications related to their chronic condition(s), (2) demanding a higher need of care, (3) living in a low socio-economic situation, (4) estimated to have limited or low health literacy, or (5) tending to need more care according to at least one member of their primary care team.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria were defined for either ethical or practical reasons and assessed by the entire research team: (1) patients legally incapacitated to participate, (2) patients incapable to reason about care for various reasons (e.g., severe mental illness, cognitive impairment), (3) patients incapable of being interviewed during the predetermined time frame, (4) patients unable to give permission by the informed consent form, and (5) patients with terminal illness.

Dyads were approached by health and welfare organisations or by their General Practitioner (GP), who provided general information on the study. Oral permission of the dyads to their GP was required for the research team to contact the participants. The researcher explained the informed consent form and provided additional information on the project. The dyads were assured participation was completely voluntary and their informed consent was obtained before the beginning of the interviews.

Data collection

Semi-structured interviews were organised with dyads in their home setting or due to the COVID-19 pandemic by using video conferencing platforms. The interviews were conducted between January 2020 and August 2020 and were supported by an open-ended interview guide. Questions focused on patients’ primary care experiences and their interaction with healthcare professionals. More specifically, open-ended questions in the interview related to (1) daily experiences of living with a chronic condition; (2) structure and functioning of the care network; (3) empowerment, involvement, and participation in care processes; (4) needs, goals and wishes towards primary care and (5) guidance and support strategies in primary care. Every interview was scheduled to last no more than one hour a half. The interviews were addressed to the patient, but the informal caregiver was offered the possibility to add input or support the conversation to improve patient understanding. The collection of data was pilot tested, and the first interviews were conducted by two researchers of the team (DB, MS, and LT) together. The subsequent interviews were conducted independently by one researcher of the same team, individually recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Data analysis

To address the research question in this paper, a qualitative inductive content analysis was undertaken by the main researcher LT (Graneheim et al., 2017) [35]. First, transcripts were read multiple times to gain an overall naive understanding. Afterwards, the data were reduced into meaningful units addressing patients’ self-management support experiences. Subsequently, units were condensed and labelled with codes. Thereafter, the codes were compared and allocated into subcategories by classifying the codes according to similarities and differences. Similar subcategories were merged into each other and categorized into main categories. Finally, a reverse approach was used, and the overall main categories were tailored to the initial data. Data analysis was conducted using an Excel spreadsheet. Meaningful units, condensations, subcategories, and categories were checked by the principal investigator (BS) and confirmed to increase the credibility of the results. We considered data saturation as the end point of data collection and analysis, meaning no new data were generated from the interviews.

Trustworthiness

To prove trustworthiness of the data, the criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability were applied in this study (Guba and Lincoln) [37]. To enhance credibility of the analysis, we used member-checking to ensure accuracy. Member-checking of the findings was performed by presenting the model and findings to a minority of participants. In addition, maximum variation sampling was applied to recruit the interview participants. To increase the transferability, participants of different age, socioeconomic level, educational level, living and health status were chosen. Moreover, we tried to ensure this transferability of the data by including direct quotations in the manuscript. To enhance dependability of our data, the interviews were carefully recorded and transcribed verbatim. In addition, the analysis was checked by qualitative experts in the field, which has also contributed to the confirmability of our data. The latter criterion was further increased by including appropriate samples with maximum variation.

Research team

The interviews were collected by DB, MS, and LT; the analysis of the experiences towards self-management support was performed by the main researcher LT in close collaboration with the entire research team. Before the project initiation, the team received a training on the principles and methods in qualitative research to assure a certain level of standardization.

Ethics

Ethical approval for the original study was obtained from the Ethical Committee of University of Antwerp (B300201942302). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines. The entire study was in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.

Results

In total, 16 interviews with a patient-informal caregiver dyad were performed. The interviews lasted from 58 to 90 min. Although the interviews were conducted with patients in the presence of their informal caregivers, the results presented in this paper entirely focus on the patient’s experiences towards self-management support. Involving the informal caregivers helped patients in formulating their story and to feel at ease.

Characteristics of study participants

A total of 32 persons were interviewed, including 16 patients and 16 informal caregivers. Most patients were living together with their informal caregiver (11 out of 16 patients). The characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the participants
Full size table

Structural analysis

The inductive content analysis of the interview data resulted in five main categories regarding the role of healthcare professionals in reinforcing patients’ self-management: supporting, involving, listening, coordinating, and questioning. The main categories are the result of breaking down the interview transcripts into meaning units, further condensed into multiple subcategories, and finally encapsulated into main categories (Table 2). In some cases, a subcategory applies to multiple main categories since the main categories are not strictly delineated and overlap slightly. Table 3 provides an overview of the main categories and subcategories. The categories exclusively focus on interactions between patients and their healthcare professionals.

The healthcare professional network consisted in many cases of the same key actors including a GP, a pharmacist, a home nurse, and a medical specialist related to a specific disease. Typically, the primary care professionals acted as the first and central point of contact for patients. Depending on patients’ case, other primary healthcare professionals were also involved like social workers, physiotherapists, speech therapists, members of the pain clinic, dietitian, etc. A patient with Parkinson’s disease, for example, would be additionally supported by a physiotherapist and a speech therapist. In a limited number of interviews, there was also guidance by a psychologist or psychiatrist. In the following section, the different categories are presented with examples of verbatim quotes.

Table 2 Example of the inductive content analysis
Full size table
Table 3 Overview of subcategories and main categories resulting in an overall core category
Full size table

Supporting

Within our study context, we defined supporting as all elements supplied by a healthcare professional related to treatment, follow-up, and guidance. The participating patients indicated to be accompanied by a team of healthcare professionals. According to the interview data, the main actors involved in the active support were nurses, GPs, and physiotherapists. Their support was experienced as essential to fit the chronic condition into daily life. In essence, essential to self-manage the disease.

“For my care… I don’t think other persons are involved beside my physiotherapist, the home nurse and my GP.” (patient)

Besides delivering physical care (e.g., diagnosis, treatment, symptom control), various other support elements came up in the interviews. More specifically, supporting was about actively guiding through the delivery of practical tools (e.g., a wheelchair), health-related information, medical assistance (e.g., medicines) and the set-up of home care. Home health care represented most of the support. The frequent visits by home care nurses ensured a better disease management.

“And then in the evening, the physiotherapist comes to visit at home. And he provides exercises for my back and my neck and he applies a bandage with a tape." … “It really helps me. He supports me well.” (patient)

“The purpose of the nursery is to make the physical condition as good as possible.

That goal has been realized.” (patient)

Involving

Involving was defined as working in (co-)partnership with patients. Participants described explicitly the wish to be involved in their care. Patients experienced feelings of respect and equality when being actively engaged in health care. It gave them a chance to participate in their own care and to self-manage their chronic condition. The involvement seemed to be mostly related to medical decision making. For example, patients longed for a freedom of choice related to medical treatment options. In addition, the wish was expressed to be involved in decisions concerning the support of daily life activities. Well-informed decisions did arise when there was room for open conversation and discussion. The extent to which patients wanted to be involved depended on the patient.

“If I have an appointment with D. [the doctor], he asks me if I want to try the proposed medicine or if I prefer something else. So yes, I’m taking part in the decisions he makes.” (patient).

Moreover, patients strived for involvement throughout the entire care process. To overcome the pitfall of a provider-centred management, patients indicated empathy and understanding as essential components of good collaboration. The participants expressed the wish to share their concerns to feel comfortable in the care they receive.

“No, I make decisions together. Uh, for example… They have asked me a couple of times what I think about a DBS [Deep Brain Stimulation]. Uh, I am quite reluctant towards it

and therefore, I have made it clear to the doctor.” (patient)

Listening

Listening seemed one of the most talked-about components, defined as the act of giving an audience and paying attention to someone. Patients expected from their healthcare professionals to listen to what they need, what they want and to what they strive for. Only in this way patients felt supported to manage the chronic disease. In addition, the interviews emphasised the importance of encountering a professional with a listening ear to be able to express concerns. The interview participants pointed towards the home care nurse, a psychologist, or the GP as the ideally positioned sounding board.

“She [GP] helped me… I can always go to visit her or call if I do not feel okay.

Not for the prescription of my medications, but to meet for a talk.” (patient)

Listening to patients was defined as taking time and being into an accessible mindset. Furthermore, listening means patients felt heard. Participants clearly mentioned that plenty of opportunities can arise from open-minded interactions between care professionals and care receivers.

“You have the feeling that those doctors are making time for you. It’s not that you walk in their practice and they immediately start looking at the clock… If the doctor comes here for a home visit, and he always comes here, he’ll just sit down for half an hour, at least, and tell you all kind of things. He is also a nice person… and he listens to you and gives advice.” (patient)

The listening aspect was also mentioned in the interviews when talking about emergency situations. Patients were in need to contact their care professionals if they experienced problems. Dealing with help requests included active listening to all actors involved. The GP mostly acted as the central contact person in these cases.

Coordinating

Coordinating was defined as guiding responsibilities in the entire care process. According to the participants, coordinated care contributed to coping with their chronic condition, and consequently, to self-manage the chronic condition. Patients expected healthcare professionals to assume responsibility to keep the care network running. An effective follow-up was fundamental by means of coordination between the professionals.

Furthermore, patients expressed the importance of being able to make an appeal to their formal network. Again, the central connection was the patients’ GP.

“They work well together. P. [GP1] is the one who coordinates everything a bit. J. [GP2] has been away for a year because she had a baby. P. and J. used to come around. During the holidays we received a letter that someone is stepping in. They are all good doctors. They coordinate with each other very well.” (patient)

According to the participants, the act of coordinating involves communication and discussion between different actors through the entire care process. Participants experienced benefits of information exchange since it guaranteed care continuity. In addition, coordinating included collaborating among the healthcare professionals with a focus on the chronically ill patient. This could be facilitated using digital tools (e.g., digital patient file, electronic health platforms). The interview conversations highlighted the significance of a well-functioning structured care system, in which effective and clear agreements are made. Finally, coordinating also meant that there was good overview of all care actors involved.

“Doctor X [GP1] and doctor Y [GP2], they come here for a home visit. And they have their computers with them. They contain the entire patient file. Everything is written inside that has happened. And if someone [one of the two central GPs] cannot come to us, there are always others doctors available. You see, that’s how our doctors are here.” (patient)

Questioning

For the current analysis, we defined questioning as a type of communication giving raise to conversation by using interrogation. Patients expected the care professionals to ask them questions. Posing questions created a genuine momentum between care professionals and patients. It resulted in an interactive conversation about patient’s wishes, goals, and expectations. Furthermore, formulating questions to the patient initiated valuable conversations about the care process: what goes well and what could be improved? Do patients feel comfortable in their care, do they understand the medical treatment or are there any ambiguities? Additionally, a question could boost the mechanisms of information transfer between patients and their care professionals.

"A great healthcare professional takes time, poses question and talks." (patient)

Conceptual model

Using in-depth interviews, insights into patients’ primary care experiences related to self-management support were gained. We learned that patients could manage their chronic disease more effectively if they feel supported, involved in the care process, listened to, if their care is coordinated and if they are questioned. Based on these five main categories, we were able to identify and formulate concepts to describe the key characteristics in the support of self-management. The conceptual model for primary care practice includes five fundamental tasks that need to be performed by healthcare professionals - Supporting, Involving, Listening, Coordinating and Questioning (SILCQ) – that contribute to efficiently supporting chronic patients’ self-management. These tasks were incorporated into the model as the acronym ‘SILCQ’ (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model on the support of self-management. Abbreviations: S = Supporting; I = Involving; L = Listening; C = Coordinating; Q = Questioning. Icon made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com

Full size image

Patients are in most cases connected to a social network. We defined this network as ‘the social environment’. According to the participants, the social environment consists of the closest surroundings of a patient. The composition of the social environment varied and was different depending on the patients. Possible members were relatives, friends, and partners. This network was reinforced by peers in some cases. In this close environment, someone had taken upon the role of informal caregiver.

“I am in contact with the health insurance fund. Also, with my parents, of course, and my friends and family… And the nurses for appointments and to accompany me to scans etc. And my home help… And the family doctor.” (patient). 

“I think that fellow sufferers are important. Like the pain society…. That’s very good because there you get to know people who also understand you and who are also going through the same thing to some extent. I find the support of those people enormous.” (patient)

Being able to manage a chronic condition is closely related to support by the entire care network, including the social environment. The proposed model considers these interactions in a patient-centred care network.

“And if she suddenly has a disease flare, I call the medical practice to ask for help. Afterwards, I can get a medicine from the pharmacist, because in those situations she is out of medication. When I call, the doctor says: ‘Yes, go ahead.‘ So, I call the pharmacist and I say to them: ‘I have a problem, but I don’t have the prescription for the medication yet. Can I already pick up the medication?‘ I’ll bring it later, and that is not a problem.” (informal caregiver).

Discussion

The findings highlight healthcare professionals’ role in supporting self-management of chronic conditions. These roles are reflected in the proposed SILCQ-model. Unfortunately, important components such as arranging follow-up are often ignored in practice [38]. Due to the high demands for time and attention, the focus during clinical encounters is mainly on the current problems of patients [39]. The adoption of follow-up with healthcare professionals is additionally challenged because it may be difficult for patients to understand the concept or may be considered an unacceptable intrusion into daily life [40]. Nevertheless, our study emphasises the importance of active support from healthcare professionals during both treatment and follow-up. Providing medical information and tools is part of the support. Our study demonstrates that supporting means that the necessary guidance is provided or built up around a patient. In this environment, healthcare professionals and patients should act as equal partners. Fu et al. [41] also revealed the importance of patients’ partnerships with healthcare professionals on the ability to self-manage. Our interview participants expressed the desire to be involved in the entire care process. The challenge seems to shape this collaboration and define the contribution of the patient himself [15, 42]. A balance must be achieved between respecting patients’ autonomy and encouraging their active contribution in healthcare [43]. A recent systematic review on patient involvement identified factors that determine involvement in medical performance, namely the attitudes of the individual healthcare professional, the patient characteristics, the understanding of the purpose of involvement and the key relationships (i.e., doctor-patient relationship and the profession‐public relationship) [44]. According to our interview data,, the extent to which involvement contributes to self-management depends very much on the individual patient. Consequently, determining patients’ wishes and goals is an important component of self-management support. Several studies confirm this association with goal-oriented care [45, 46]. Because of the strong association, healthcare professionals are challenged to actively question patients to determine goals. Conversation is shaped using interrogation. This questioning aspect was strongly emphasised in the interviews. Open-ended questions enable physicians to obtain crucial and sufficient health information from patients [47]. An essential condition for this is that healthcare professionals commit to active listening. Unfortunately, healthcare professionals are used to telling, rather than actively questioning, what patients want or what feels good for them [48]. Miles et al. [49] confirms these findings by identifying communication as crucial for effective self-management. The study analyses patients’ experiences and reveals that patients expect to be listened to. Remarkable, our interview participants consider listening to patients as a natural one-way behaviour in providing good care, which also includes supporting self-management [50]. However, being in the position to listen to patients depends on various aspects. These aspects are not only related to the commitment and skills of healthcare professionals. In primary care practice, listening is additionally hampered by various factors, such as limited skills of patients and limiting contextual factors (e.g., doctor’s mood, workload, lack of time) [51, 52]. Moreover, asking question and listening are not stand-alone elements to facilitate dialogue [53]. Integrating moments of silence and paying attention to nonverbal communication significantly contributes to patient-centred communication [54,55,56]. In addition, dealing with patients’ cues and concerns is a foundation listening skill for GPs [51]. Unfortunately, there is evidence that these cues and concerns are not picked up or even ignored in daily primary care consultations [57, 58]. More training is needed to develop communication competences and skills of healthcare professionals beyond asking questions and offering a listening ear. To optimally deliver self-management support, a multidisciplinary approach is required. Tocchi et al. [59] described a positive effect of multidisciplinary teams on self-management of symptoms. Our research emphasises the role of a central healthcare professional to coordinate care. According to the interview data, the main actor in supporting self-management is context and patient dependent. Nevertheless, we can argue that in most cases the GP is mentioned as the pivotal figure. Unfortunately, not all GPs are able to fulfil this pivotal role [60, 61]. This must be considered when organising care around chronic patients. GPs must be taught the necessary competencies and skills in leadership [62].

Although our findings are in agreements with other studies regarding self-management support, most studies focus on one single aspect of the support. Few comprehensive models have been designed that include multiple aspects [20, 26, 27]. In addition, most models don’t target multimorbidity and only focus on self-management support from a specific healthcare professional [28]. Our SILCQ-model addresses this issue by providing insights into the fundamentals of support strategies, independent of the type of disease and healthcare professional. Self-management support interventions are not applicable to every patient and subject to change [63]. Therefore, it is important to consult the SILCQ-model which represents the foundation on which to build interventions.

Strengths and limitations

Some limitations should be mentioned. First, patients were interviewed in the presence of their informal caregiver for additional support. This may have caused the participants withholding personal stories resulting in some bias. However, involving the care network of patients resulted in valuable insights. It should be noted that these insights only apply to patients. No conclusions about informal care can be drawn from this study. To be as comprehensive as possible, we continued to interview dyads until saturation of data was reached. Since in the last interviews, no new information on the topic of self-management support appeared, we decided the stop data collection after interviewing 16 dyads. Secondly, since participation in this research was completely voluntary, volunteer bias can occur. However, our research sample can be considered clinically representative in the international primary care context, when focusing on patients with complex care needs (i.e., mostly an aging population). Thirdly, the SILCQ-model is the result of discussions only with patients. Not including healthcare professionals allowed patients’ voice to be the focus of the model. Involving healthcare professionals should be the next step to validate the results. Fourthly, the SILCQ-model does not provide any recommendations for future self-management support interventions. We aimed to provide insights, rather than formulate specific guidelines because effectiveness of interventions is highly context and patient dependent. In addition, we believe that the SILCQ-components are the fundaments of every self-management support intervention in primary care. Lastly, the choice to conduct a qualitative content analysis limited the generalisability of the results. However, rather than generalising we aimed to undertake a proof of concept to understand the features of self-management support more in depth.

Implications for research and practice

The SILCQ-model provides a holistic approach to self-management support, while focusing on the central interaction in the care network between healthcare professionals and patients. Programme developers are encouraged to keep the formulated elements in mind when setting up new self-management support interventions in primary care. Further research is required to understand how these SILCQ-elements are implemented in care practice and contribute to self-management outcomes.

Conclusion

This qualitative paper highlights the importance of the SILCQ-elements – Supporting, Involving, Listening, Coordinating and Questioning – when reinforcing patients’ self-management. In providing good care, healthcare professionals are expected to prioritize these actions. The model should be further explored by all stakeholders to support the development of self-management interventions in primary care practice.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The interview guide is made available at:

https://kuleuven-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/lotte_timmermans_kuleuven_be/EVzVbmXRf3JEqRHNMVNEYFMBygAE0Vc380kvRrz2rRD0Iw?e=sfo6gI.

Abbreviations

WHO:

: World health organization

WISE:

Whole system informing self-management engagement

PCA:

Primary care academy

GP:

General practitioner

SILCQ:

Supporting, involving, listening, coordinating and questioning

References

  1. Kuluski K, Ho JW, Hans PK, La Nelson M. Community care for people with complex care needs: Bridging the gap between health and social care. Int J Integr Care. 2017;17(4).

  2. Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: A cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hajat C, Stein E. The global burden of multiple chronic conditions: A narrative review. Prev Med Reports. 2018;12:284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Der Heide I, Melchiorre MG, Quattrini S, Boerma W. Innovating care for people with multiple chronic conditions in Europe An overview [Internet]. [cited 2020 Aug 14]. Available from: www.nivel.eu

  5. Chronic disease & Policy - European chronic disease alliance [Internet]. [cited 2020 Oct 12]. Available from: https://alliancechronicdiseases.org/chronic-disease-policy/

  6. Devins GM, Binik YM, Hutchinson TA, Hollomby DJ, Barré PE, Guttmann RD. The emotional impact of end-stage renal disease: Importance of patients’ perceptions of intrusiveness and control. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1983;13(4):327–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Megari K. Quality of Life in Chronic Disease Patients. Health Psychol Res. 2013;1(3):e27.

  8. Baker JM, Grant RW, Gopalan A. A systematic review of care management interventions targeting multimorbidity and high care utilization. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Barlow JH, Sturt J, Hearnshaw H. Self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care: Examples from arthritis, asthma and diabetes. Health Educ J. 2002;61(4):365–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zapka JG, Lemon SC. Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations. Cancer. 2004;101:1165–87.

  11. Dwamena F, Holmes-Rovner M, Gaulden CM, Jorgenson S, Sadigh G, Sikorskii A, et al. Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations. Cochrane Database Syst Reviews. 2012;12.

  12. Latkin CA, Knowlton AR. Social Network Assessments and Interventions for Health Behavior Change: A Critical Review. Behav Med. 2015;3(3):90–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coster S, Norman I. Cochrane reviews of educational and self-management interventions to guide nursing practice: A review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46:508–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alvarez C, Greene J, Hibbard J, Overton V. The role of primary care providers in patient activation and engagement in self-management: A cross-sectional analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16(1):85.

  15. Coulter A, Ellins J. Patient-focused interventions A review of the evidence [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2021 Mar 30]. Available from: www.health.org.uk/QQUIP

  16. Funnell MM. Helping Patients Take Charge of Their Chronic Illnesses. Fam Pract Manag. 2000;7(3):47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McWilliam CL. Patients, persons or partners? Involving those with chronic disease in their care. Chronic Illness. 2009;5:277–92.

  18. Glasgow RE, Wagner EH, Schaefer J, Mahoney LD, Reid RJ, Greene SM. Development and validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Med Care. 2005;43(5):436–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, Turner A, Hainsworth J. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: A review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(2):177–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Glasgow RE, Davis CL, Funnell MM, Beck A. Implementing practical interventions to support chronic illness self-management. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003;29(11):563–74.

  21. Lorig KR, Sobel DS, Ritter PL, Laurent D, Hobbs M. Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;

  22. Samuelson M, Tedeschi P, Aarendonk D, De La Cuesta C, Groenewegen P. Position Paper of the European Forum for Primary care Title: Improving inter-professional collaboration in Primary Care. 2012.

  23. Dent M, Pahor M. Patient involvement in Europe – a comparative framework. J Health Organisation Manag. 2015;29:546–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Greenhalgh T. Patient and public involvement in chronic illness: beyond the expert patient. BMJ. 2009;338:b49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Salemonsen E, Førland G, Hansen BS, Holm AL. Understanding beneficial self-management support and the meaning of user involvement in lifestyle interventions: A qualitative study from the perspective of healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson DG, O’Brien S, Kennedy A, Rogers A, Whorwell P, Lovell K, et al. The WISE model of self-management support. 2018 [cited 2021 Jul 27]; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK487594/

  27. Mills SL, Brady TJ, Jayanthan J, Ziabakhsh S, Sargious PM. Toward consensus on self-management support: the international chronic condition self-management support framework. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(6):942–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O'Connell S, Mc Carthy VJC, Savage E. Frameworks for self-management support for chronic disease: a cross-country comparative document analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):583.

  29. Lindsay S, Kingsnorth S, Mcdougall C, Keating H. A systematic review of self-management interventions for children and youth with physical disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2014;36(4):276–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wong SKW, Smith HE, Chua JJS, Griva K, Cartwright EJ, Soong AJ, et al. Effectiveness of self-management interventions in young adults with type 1 and 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabet Med. 2020;37(2):229–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jonkman NH, Westland H, Trappenburg JCA, Groenwold RHH, Bischoff EWMA, Bourbeau J, et al. Characteristics of effective self-management interventions in patients with COPD: individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(1):55–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Smith SM, Wallace E, Clyne B, Boland F, Fortin M. Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community setting: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2021;10:271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Franklin M, Lewis S, Willis K, Bourke-Taylor H, Smith L. Patients’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of self-management support interactions: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Chronic Illn. 2018;14(2):79–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Chertoff J. The evolving physician-patient relationship: equal partnership, more responsibility. Qual Prim Care. 2015;23(1):1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Graneheim UH, Lindgren BM, Lundman B. Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;56:29–34.

  36. Iglesias FH, Celada CA, Navarro CB, Morales LP, Visus NA, Valverde CC, Dorado VM, Martínez Muñoz ML, Pueyo CB, Ramírez EL, Villaroel RM, Jordana NM, Bonet Simó JM. SABCOMP group. Complex Care Needs in Multiple Chronic Conditions: Population Prevalence and Characterization in Primary Care. A Study Protocol. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18(2)16.

  37. Lincoln Y, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage. 1985;92–109, 357–67.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Slev VN, Pasman HRW, Eeltink CM, van Uden-Kraan CF, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Francke AL. Self-management support and eHealth for patients and informal caregivers confronted with advanced cancer: an online focus group study among nurses. BMC Palliat Care. 2017;16(1):55.

  39. Von Korff M, Tiemens B. Individualized stepped care of chronic illness. West J Med. 2000;172(2):133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Brunner-La Rocca HP, Fleischhacker L, Golubnitschaja O, Heemskerk F, Helms T, Hoedemakers T, Allianses SH, Jaarsma T, Kinkorova J, Ramaekers J, Ruff P, Schnur I, Vanoli E, Verdu J, Zippel-Schultz B. Challenges in personalised management of chronic diseases-heart failure as prominent example to advance the care process. EPMA J. 2016;7(1):2.

  41. Fu Y, McNichol E, Marczewski K, Closs SJ. Exploring the Influence of Patient-Professional Partnerships on the Self-Management of Chronic Back Pain: A Qualitative Study. Pain Manag Nurs. 2016;17(5):339–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Phillips RL, Short A, Kenning A, Dugdale P, Nugus P, McGowan R, et al. Achieving patient-centred care: the potential and challenge of the patient-as-professional role. Heal Expect. 2015;18(6):2616–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wetzels R, Harmsen M, Van Weel C, Grol R, Wensing M. Interventions for improving older patients' involvement in primary care episodes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007(1):CD004273.

  44. Lalani M, Baines R, Bryce M, Marshall M, Mead S, Barasi S, et al. Patient and public involvement in medical performance processes: A systematic review. Health Expect. 2019;22(2):149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lenzen SA, van Dongen JJJ, Daniëls R, van Bokhoven MA, van der Weijden T, Beurskens A. What does it take to set goals for self-management in primary care? A qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2016;33(6):698–703.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Hughes S, Lewis S, Willis K, Rogers A, Wyke S, Smith L. Goal setting in group programmes for long-term condition self-management support: experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Psychol Health. 2020;35(1):70–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Takemura Y, Sakurai Y, Yokoya S, Otaki J, Matsuoka T, Ban N, et al. Open-Ended Questions: Are They Really Beneficial for Gathering Medical Information from Patients ? Tohoku J Exp Med. 2005;206(2):151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. How to Incorporate Self-Management Support into your Practice (Video Transcript). Content last reviewed February 2016. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 29]. Available from: https://www.ahrq.gov/ncepcr/tools/self-mgmt/how-script.html

  49. Miles C, Arden-Close E, Thomas M, Bruton A, Yardley L, Hankins M, et al. Barriers and facilitators of effective self-management in asthma: systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient and healthcare professional views. npj Prim Care Respir Med 2017 271. 2017;27(1):1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bodenheimer T, Wagner EH, Grumbach K. Improving Primary Care for Patients With Chronic Illness. JAMA. 2002;288(14):1775–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cocksedge S, May C. The listening loop: a model of choice about cues within primary care consultations. Med Educ. 2005;39(10):999–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Cocksedge S. Learning to listen in primary care: some educational challenges. Educ Prim Care. 2016;27(6):434–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bensing JM, Deveugele M, Moretti F, Fletcher I, van Vliet L, Van Bogaert M, et al. How to make the medical consultation more successful from a patient’s perspective? Tips for doctors and patients from lay people in the United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(3):287–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bensing JM, Verhaak PFM. Communication in Medical Encounters. In A. Kaptein & J. Weinman (Eds.), Health psychology. 2004;261–87.

  55. Hall J, Roter D, Junghans B. Doctors Talking with Patients—Patients Talking with Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Clin Exp Optom. 1995;78(2):79–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ong L, de Haes J, Hoos A, Lammes F. Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):903–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Campion P, Foulkes J, Neighbour R, Tate P. Patient centredness in the MRCGP video examination: analysis of large cohort. Br Med J. 2002;325(7366):691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284(8):1021–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tocchi C, McCorkle R, Knobf MT. Multidisciplinary Specialty Teams: A Self-Management Program for Patients With Advanced Cancer. J Adv Pract Oncol. 2015;6(5):408.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Stange KC, Jaén CR, Flocke SA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Zyzanski SJ. The value of a family physician. J Fam Pract. 1998;46(5):363–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Birgitte S, Frank B, Jan D. What is the role of the general practitioner towards the family caregiver of a community-dwelling demented relative? A systematic literature review. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2009;27(1):31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Grol SM, Molleman GRM, Kuijpers A, van der Sande R, Fransen GAJ, Assendelft WJJ, Schers HJ. The role of the general practitioner in multidisciplinary teams: a qualitative study in elderly care. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19(1):40.

  63. Lake AJ, Staiger PK. Seeking the views of health professionals on translating chronic disease self-management models into practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79(1):62–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was written on behalf of the Primary Care Academy (PCA). The PCA is a research and teaching network of four universities and six university colleges in Flanders, the White-Yellow Cross (Flemish home care organization) and patient representatives in Belgium. The purpose of the consortium is to reinforce knowledge about primary care and to develop interventions, optimal roadmaps, and hands-on toolkits for primary care policies, practice, and education, built upon the principles of goal-oriented care, interprofessional collaboration and self-management. We expressly thank our PCA colleagues Dominique Van de Velde and Patricia De Vriendt for their expertise and guidance while preparing, performing, and analysing the dyadic interviews. We also would like to acknowledge all the participating participants and their informal caregivers.

Primary Care Academy

The consortium of the Primary Care Academy consists of: Lead author: Roy Remmen–roy.remmen@uantwerpen.be—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium; Emily Verté—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium, Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Brussel. Belgium; Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi—Centre for research and innovation in care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium; Peter Van Bogaert—Workforce Management and Outcomes Research in Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Belgium; Hans De Loof—Laboratory of Physio pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences. University of Antwerp. Belgium; Kris Van den Broeck—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium.; Sibyl Anthierens—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium; Ine Huybrechts—Department of Primary Care and Interdisciplinary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Antwerp. Antwerp. Belgium.; Peter Raeymaeckers—Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Antwerp. Belgium; Veerle Buffel- Department of Sociology; centre for population, family and health, Faculty of Social Sciences. University of Antwerp. Belgium.; Dirk Devroey- Department of Family Medicine and Chronic Care, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Brussel.; Bert Aertgeerts—Academic Centre for General Practice, Faculty of Medicine. KU Leuven. Leuven, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven. Leuven; Birgitte Schoenmakers—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven. Leuven. Belgium; Lotte Timmermans—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven. Leuven. Belgium.; Veerle Foulon— Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, Faculty Pharmaceutical Sciences. KU Leuven. Leuven. Belgium.; Anja Declerq—LUCAS-Centre for Care Research and Consultancy, Faculty of Social Sciences. KU Leuven. Leuven. Belgium.; ; Dominique Van de Velde Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium., Department of Occupational Therapy. Artevelde University of Applied Sciences. Ghent. Belgium.; Pauline Boeckxstaens—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium.; An De Sutter -Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium.; Patricia De Vriendt—Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium., Frailty in Ageing (FRIA) Research Group, Department of Gerontology and Mental Health and Wellbeing (MENT) research group, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy. Vrije Universiteit. Brussels. Belgium., Department of Occupational Therapy. Artevelde University of Applied Sciences. Ghent. Belgium.; Lies Lahousse—Department of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ghent University. Ghent. Belgium.; Peter Pype—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium., End-of-Life Care Research Group, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Ghent University. Ghent. Belgium.; Dagje Boeykens- Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Occupational Therapy. Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium., Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium.; Ann Van Hecke—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium., University Centre of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium.; Peter Decat—Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health sciences. University of Ghent. Belgium.; Rudi Roose—Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. University Ghent. Belgium.; Sandra Martin—Expertise Centre Health Innovation. University College Leuven-Limburg. Leuven. Belgium.; Erica Rutten—Expertise Centre Health Innovation. University College Leuven-Limburg. Leuven. Belgium.; Sam Pless —Expertise Centre Health Innovation. University College Leuven-Limburg. Leuven. Belgium.; Anouk Tuinstra —Expertise Centre Health Innovation. University College Leuven-Limburg. Leuven. Belgium.; Vanessa Gauwe—Department of Occupational Therapy. Artevelde University of Applied Sciences. Ghent. Belgium.; Didier Reynaert- E-QUAL, University College of Applied Sciences Ghent. Ghent. Belgium.; Leen Van Landschoot—Department of Nursing, University of Applied Sciences Ghent. Ghent. Belgium.; Maja Lopez Hartmann—Department of Welfare and Health, Karel de Grote University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Antwerp. Belgium.; Tony Claeys- LiveLab, VIVES University of Applied Sciences. Kortrijk. Belgium.; Hilde Vandenhoudt—LiCalab, Thomas University of Applied Sciences. Turnhout. Belgium.; Kristel De Vliegher—Department of Nursing–homecare, White-Yellow Cross. Brussels. Belgium.; Susanne Op de Beeck—Flemish Patient Platform. Heverlee. Belgium.

Funding

The PCA is funded by the Fund dr. Daniël De Coninck, which is managed by the King Baudouin Foundation (Belgium). This research paper received no additional external funding, and the funder was not involved in this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Centre of General Practice, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, Box 7001, 3000, Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Lotte Timmermans

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Dagje Boeykens

  3. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Dagje Boeykens

  4. Centre for research and innovation in care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Mustafa Muhammed Sirimsi

  5. Department of Primary Care, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Mustafa Muhammed Sirimsi

  6. General Practice and Primary Health Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Peter Decat

  7. Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Veerle Foulon

  8. Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Hecke University, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Ann Van Hecke

  9. Department Nursing Director, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

    Ann Van Hecke

  10. Academic Centre of General Practice, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Mieke Vermandere & Birgitte Schoenmakers

Authors
  1. Lotte Timmermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dagje Boeykens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mustafa Muhammed Sirimsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Decat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Veerle Foulon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ann Van Hecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mieke Vermandere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Birgitte Schoenmakers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the Primary Care Academy

  • Roy Remmen
  • , Emily Verté
  • , Muhammed Mustafa Sirimsi
  • , Peter Van Bogaert
  • , Hans De Loof
  • , Kris Van den Broeck
  • , Sibyl Anthierens
  • , Ine Huybrechts
  • , Peter Raeymaeckers
  • , Veerle Buffel
  • , Dirk Devroey
  • , Bert Aertgeerts
  • , Birgitte Schoenmakers
  • , Lotte Timmermans
  • , Veerle Foulon
  • , Anja Declerq
  • , Dominique Van de Velde
  • , Pauline Boeckxstaens
  • , An De Sutter
  • , Patricia De Vriendt
  • , Lies Lahousse
  • , Peter Pype
  • , Dagje Boeykens
  • , Ann Van Hecke
  • , Peter Decat
  • , Rudi Roose
  • , Sandra Martin
  • , Erica Rutten
  • , Sam Pless
  • , Anouk Tuinstra
  • , Vanessa Gauwe
  • , Didier Reynaert
  • , Leen Van Landschoot
  • , Maja Lopez Hartmann
  • , Tony Claeys
  • , Hilde Vandenhoudt
  • , Kristel De Vliegher
  •  & Susanne Op de Beeck

Contributions

LT, DB and MS conducted the interviews. In-depth analysis was performed by the main researcher LT, in close collaboration with BS. LT wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lotte Timmermans.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethical Committee of University of Antwerp (B300201942302). The study was in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants in the interviews were pseudonymised using identification numbers to ensure their confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained by all participants in this study. All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Timmermans, L., Boeykens, D., Sirimsi, M.M. et al. Self-management support in flemish primary care practice: the development of a preliminary conceptual model using a qualitative approach. BMC Prim. Care 23, 63 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01652-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01652-8

Keywords

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us