Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29343168›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of primary health care2018

Assessment of goals and priorities in patients with a chronic condition: a secondary quantitative analysis of determinants across 11 countries.

Neeltje P C A Vermunt, Gert P Westert, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Marjan J Faber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of primary health care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Neeltje P C A Vermunta Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare) , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Gert P Westerta Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare) , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Marcel G M Olde Rikkertc Radboud University Medical Center, Radboudumc Alzheimer Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.
Marjan J Fabera Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare (IQ healthcare) , Nijmegen , The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the impact of patient characteristics, patient-professional engagement, communication and context on the probability that healthcare professionals will discuss goals or priorities with older patients.

designSecondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2014 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Older Adults.

setting11 western countries. SUBJECTS: Community-dwelling adults, aged 55 or older.

main outcome measureAssessment of goals and priorities.

resultsThe final sample size consisted of 17,222 respondents, 54% of whom reported an assessment of their goals and priorities (AGP) by healthcare professionals. In logistic regression model 1, which was used to analyse the entire population, the determinants found to have moderate to large effects on the likelihood of AGP were information exchange on stress, diet or exercise, or both. Country (living in Sweden) and continuity of care (no regular professional or organisation) had moderate to large negative effects on the likelihood of AGP. In model 2, which focussed on respondents who experienced continuity of care, country and information exchange on stress and lifestyle were the main determinants of AGP, with comparable odds ratios to model 1. Furthermore, a professional asking questions also increased the likelihood of AGP.

conclusionsContinuity of care and information exchange is associated with a higher probability of AGP, while people living in Sweden are less likely to experience these assessments. Further study is required to determine whether increasing information exchange and professionals asking more questions may improve goal setting with older patients. Key points   A patient goal-oriented approach can be beneficial for older patients with chronic conditions or multimorbidity; however, discussing goals with these patients is not a common practice. The likelihood of discussing goals varies by country, occurring most commonly in the USA, and least often in Sweden. Country-level differences in continuity of care and questions asked by a regularly visited professional affect the goal discussion probability. Patient characteristics, including age, have less impact than expected on the likelihood of sharing goals.

Indexed as

CommunicationCross-Cultural ComparisonGoalsPatient ParticipationProfessional-Patient RelationsAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAustraliaChronic DiseaseContinuity of Patient CareCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFemaleHealth Care SurveysHealth Personnelchronic conditioncontinuity of caredeterminantsGoal settinglogistic regression modelmultimorbidityolder patients

Identifiers

PMID29343168
PMCPMC5901444

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.