Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20837819›Full record

ArticleArchives of internal medicine2011

Primary care clinicians' experiences with treatment decision making for older persons with multiple conditions.

Terri R Fried, Mary E Tinetti, Lynne Iannone

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 236 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Guideline
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Terri R FriedDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. terri.fried@yale.edu
Mary E Tinetti
Lynne Iannone
Yale University · US

Funding

Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Albert C Shaw · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
Expanding Treatment Options for Older PersonsK24AG028443 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI FRIED, TERRI R. · 2007 to 2011
$914k
NIA NIH HHS K24 AG028443NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342NIA NIH HHS P30AG21342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinicians are caring for an increasing number of older patients with multiple diseases in the face of uncertainty concerning the benefits and harms associated with guideline-directed interventions. Understanding how primary care clinicians approach treatment decision making for these patients is critical to the design of interventions to improve the decision-making process.

methodsFocus groups were conducted with 40 primary care clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in academic, community, and Veterans Affairs-affiliated primary care practices. Participants were given open-ended questions about their approach to treatment decision making for older persons with multiple medical conditions. Responses were organized into themes using qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe participants were concerned about their patients' ability to adhere to complex regimens derived from guideline-directed care. There was variability in beliefs regarding, and approaches to balancing, the benefits and harms of guideline-directed care. There was also variability regarding how the participants involved patients in the process of decision making, with clinicians describing conflicts between their own and their patients' goals. The participants listed a number of barriers to making good treatment decisions, including the lack of outcome data, the role of specialists, patient and family expectations, and insufficient time and reimbursement.

conclusionsThe experiences of practicing clinicians suggest that they struggle with the uncertainties of applying disease-specific guidelines to their older patients with multiple conditions. To improve decision making, they need more data, alternative guidelines, approaches to reconciling their own and their patients' priorities, the support of their subspecialist colleagues, and an altered reimbursement system.

Indexed as

ComorbidityDecision MakingPatient ComplianceAdultAgedChronic DiseaseConnecticutFemaleFocus GroupsGoalsHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMedication AdherenceMiddle AgedNarration

Identifiers

PMID20837819
PMCPMC3021478
OpenAlexW2012018261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.