Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28593039›Full record

ArticleIsrael journal of health policy research2017

Is it time for comprehensive geriatric assessment to move beyond primary care? The case for targeting medical sub-specialty practice.

Laura K Byerly, G Michael Harper

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Israel journal of health policy research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura K ByerlyDivision of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, 181G, San Francisco, CA 94121 USA.
G Michael HarperDivision of Geriatrics, University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, 181G, San Francisco, CA 94121 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) as a consultative service for older adults with complex medical and psychosocial challenges has existed for decades. However, studies have often showed inconsistent acceptance and implementation of geriatric recommendations by primary care providers (PCPs) raising doubts about the overall benefits of CGA in this setting. Press and colleagues investigated the patient- and provider-related factors that affect recommendation implementation, and like previous studies, they too found similarly low rates of implementation. In this commentary, we acknowledge the perennial challenges that exist to improving the acceptance of CGA in primary care practice, and we suggest an alternative target: medical sub-specialty practice. By highlighting three medical sub-specialty fields (oncology, nephrology, and cardiology), which have demonstrated that CGA can be incorporated into their respective clinical practices, we argue that CGA may prove to have greater impact in these settings than in primary care. We also propose initial research steps that could further delineate the trends, outcomes, and next steps for such consultations.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overGeriatric AssessmentGuidelines as TopicHumansMedicinePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationWorkforceComprehensive geriatric assessmentGeriatric cardiologyGeriatric nephrologyGeriatric oncologyGeriatric outpatient care

Identifiers

PMID28593039
PMCPMC5460411

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.