Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17253501›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Interventions for improving older patients' involvement in primary care episodes.

R Wetzels, M Harmsen, C Van Weel, R Grol, M Wensing

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03786315 (Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03786315 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ExeterRan2021 to 2022Enrolled72ConditionsDecision Making, Aged, Multimorbidity, General Practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Older Patients' Verbal Communication in Interactions With Primary Care Staff: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Patient and family engagement interventions in primary care patient safety: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Perspectives of older people engaging in nurse-led cardiovascular prevention programmes: a qualitative study in primary care in the Netherlands.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R WetzelsRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), (117 KWAZO), PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, Netherlands, 6500 HB. r.wetzels@kwazo.umcn.nl
M Harmsen
C Van Weel
R Grol
M Wensing

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a growing expectation among patients that they should be involved in the delivery of medical care. Accumulating evidence from empirical studies shows that patients of average age who are encouraged to participate more actively in treatment decisions have more favourable health outcomes, in terms of both physiological and functional status, than those who do not. Interventions to encourage more active participation may be focused on different stages, including: the use of health care; preparation for contact with a care provider; contact with the care provider; or feedback about care. However, it is unclear whether the benefits of these interventions apply to the elderly as well.

objectivesTo assess the effects of interventions in primary medical care that improve the involvement of older patients (>=65 years) in their health care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (May 2003); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), The Cochrane Library issue 1, 2004; MEDLINE (Ovid) (1966 to June 2004); EMBASE (1988 to June 2004); PsycINFO (1872 to June 2004); DARE, The Cochrane Library issue 1, 2004; ERIC (1966 to June 2004); CINAHL (1982 to June 2004); Sociological Abstracts (1963 to June 2004); Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to June 2004); and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or quasi-randomised trials of interventions to improve the involvement of older patients (>= 65 years) in single consultations or episodes of primary medical care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results are presented narratively as meta-analysis was not possible. MAIN

resultsWe identified three studies involving 433 patients. Overall, the quality of studies was not high, and there was moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions of a pre-visit booklet and a pre-visit session (either combined or pre-visit session alone) led to more questioning behaviour and more self-reported active behaviour in the intervention group (3 studies). One study (booklet and pre-visit session) showed no difference in consultation length and time engaged in talk between the intervention and control groups. The booklet and pre-visit session in one study was associated with more satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of care for the intervention group although no difference in overall satisfaction between intervention and control. There was no long-term follow up to see if effects were sustained. No studies measured outcomes relating to the use of health care, health status and wellbeing, or health behaviour. AUTHORS'

conclusionsOverall this review shows some positive effects of specific methods to improve the involvement of older people in primary care episodes. Because the evidence is limited, however, we can not recommend the use of the reviewed interventions in daily practice. There should be a balance between respecting patients' autonomy and stimulating their active participation in health care. Face-to-face coaching sessions, whether or not complemented with written materials, may be the way forward. As this is impractical for the whole population, it could be worthwhile to identify a subgroup of older patients who might benefit the most from enhanced involvement, ie. those who want to be involved, but lack the necessary skills. This group could be coached either individually or, more practically, in group sessions.

Indexed as

Patient ParticipationPrimary Health CareSelf CareAgedHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17253501
PMCPMC7197439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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 OpenQuestion graph.