ArticleBMJ open2017
Decisional needs assessment of patients with complex care needs in primary care: a participatory systematic mixed studies review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis.BMC primary care · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Quality of Care Through Detection of Complexity Among Community-Dwelling Older People Receiving District-Nurse Support: ImPaCt Study Randomised Controlled Trial.Nursing open · 2025Trial
- Beyond the sum of its parts: a scoping review on complex mental health care needs.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2026Review
- Providing holistic end-of-life care for people with a history of problem substance use: a mixed methods cohort study of interdisciplinary service provision and integrated care.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Article
- Identifying facilitators and barriers to integrated and equitable care for community-dwelling older adults with high emergency department use from historically marginalized groups.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Complex patients - an academism or reality?Croatian medical journal · 2023Article
- Identifying complex patients in family medicine for potential benefit from a case manager: a short questionnaire derived from the INTERMED Self-Assessment (IMSA) questionnaire.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Examining Care Assessment Scores of Community-Dwelling Adults in Flanders, Belgium: The Role of Socio-Psychological and Assessor-Related Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Variation of Daily Care Demand in Swiss General Hospitals: Longitudinal Study on Capacity Utilization, Patient Turnover and Clinical Complexity Levels.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- An appraisal of published clinical guidelines in anesthesiology practice using the AGREE II instrument.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021Article
- Preferences of Information Dissemination on Treatment for Bipolar Disorder: Patient-Centered Focus Group Study.JMIR mental health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020558.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.