Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28174225›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a protocol for a realist synthesis to inform integrated care models.

Frances Bunn, Claire Goodman, Jill Manthorpe, Marie-Anne Durand, Isabel Hodkinson, Greta Rait, Paul Millac, Sue L Davies, Bridget Russell, Patricia Wilson

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

10 authors.

Frances BunnCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Jill ManthorpeSocial Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Marie-Anne DurandThe Preference Laboratory, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Isabel HodkinsonTower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, The Tredegar Practice, London, UK.
Greta RaitResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), London, UK.
Paul MillacUniversity of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Sue L DaviesCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Bridget RussellCentre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Patricia WilsonCentre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 08/1809/231Department of Health 11/1021/02Department of Health HS&DR/15/77/25Department of Health HTA/13/75/01Department of Health PB-PG-0906-11387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIncluding the patient or user perspective is a central organising principle of integrated care. Moreover, there is increasing recognition of the importance of strengthening relationships among patients, carers and practitioners, particularly for individuals receiving substantial health and care support, such as those with long-term or multiple conditions. The overall aims of this synthesis are to provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied to integrated care models. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The synthesis draws on the principles of realist inquiry, to explain how, in what contexts and for whom, interventions that aim to strengthen SDM among older patients, carers and practitioners are effective. We will use an iterative, stakeholder-driven, three-phase approach. Phase 1: development of programme theory/theories that will be tested through a first scoping of the literature and consultation with key stakeholder groups; phase 2: systematic searches of the evidence to test and develop the theories identified in phase 1; phase 3: validation of programme theory/theories with a purposive sample of participants from phase 1. The synthesis will draw on prevailing theories such as candidacy, self-efficacy, personalisation and coproduction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for the stakeholder interviews was obtained from the University of Hertfordshire ECDA (Ethics Committee with Delegated Authority), reference number HSK/SF/UH/02387. The propositions arising from this review will be used to develop recommendations about how to tailor SDM interventions to older people with complex health and social care needs in an integrated care setting.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDelivery of Health CareHealth ServicesSocial WorkAgedHumansPatient-Centered CareState MedicineUnited Kingdomlong term conditionsmultimorbidityOlder peoplerealist synthesisShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID28174225
PMCPMC5306514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.