Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27288377›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Making patient values visible in healthcare: a systematic review of tools to assess patient treatment priorities and preferences in the context of multimorbidity.

Dee Mangin, Gaibrie Stephen, Verdah Bismah, Cathy Risdon

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Breastfeeding in the Community-How Can Partners/Fathers Help? A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Combining volunteers and primary care teamwork to support health goals and needs of older adults: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 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

4 authors.

Dee ManginDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Department of General Practice, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Gaibrie StephenDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Verdah BismahQueens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Cathy RisdonDepartment of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify studies of existing instruments available for clinicians to record overall patient preferences and priorities for care, suitable for use in routine primary care practice in patients with multimorbidity. To examine the data for all identified tools with respect to validity, acceptability and effect on health outcomes.

designSystematic Review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, each with a predefined search strategy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Citations were included if they reported a tool used to record patient priorities or preferences for treatment, and quantitative or qualitative results following administration of the tool.

resultsOur search identified 189 potential studies of which 6 original studies and 2 discussion papers were included after screening for relevance. 5 of 6 studies (83%) were of cross-sectional design and of moderate quality. All studies reported on the usability of a tool in order to elicit patient preferences. No studies reported on changes to patient-specific healthcare outcomes as a consequence of recording preferences and priorities. 1 of 6 studies reported on eliciting patient preference in the context of multimorbidity. No studies incorporated patient preferences into an electronic medical record.

conclusionsGiven the importance of eliciting patient priorities and preferences in providing patient-centred care in the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy, we found surprisingly few relevant tools. Some aspects of the tools used for single-disease contexts may also be useful in the context of multimorbidity. There is an urgent need to develop ways to make patient priorities explicitly visible in the clinical record and medical decision-making and to test the effect on patient-relevant outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceClinical Decision-MakingHumansMultimorbidityPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsPolypharmacyGERIATRIC MEDICINEPRIMARY CAREREHABILITATION MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID27288377
PMCPMC4908882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.