Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26037690›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2015

First experiences with a two-step method for discussing goals with community-dwelling frail older people.

Sarah H M Robben, Maud M Heinen, Marieke Perry, Theo van Achterberg, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Henk J Schers, René J F Melis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Sarah H M RobbenDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Maud M HeinenScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marieke PerryDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Theo van AchterbergScientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Marcel G M Olde RikkertDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Henk J SchersDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Centre for Family Medicine, Geriatric Care and Public Health, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
René J F MelisDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this.

objectiveTo describe the development of a two-step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it.

methodsThe method consisted of (i) an open-ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method.

resultsOne hundred and thirty-seven community-dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well-being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals.

conclusionsThis two-step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making.

Indexed as

Decision MakingFrail ElderlyIndependent LivingPatient Care PlanningAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPrimary Care NursingSocial Theoryfrailtygoalspatient involvementprimary care

Identifiers

PMID26037690
PMCPMC5060876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.