Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30021527›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2018

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis.

Frances Bunn, Claire Goodman, Bridget Russell, Patricia Wilson, Jill Manthorpe, Greta Rait, Isabel Hodkinson, Marie-Anne Durand

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 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

8 authors.

Frances BunnCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK. f.bunn@herts.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5885-918X
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK.
Bridget RussellCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB, UK.
Patricia WilsonCentre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, George Allen Wing, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NF, UK.
Jill ManthorpeSocial Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, Strand, London, WC2B 4LL, UK.
Greta RaitResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Isabel HodkinsonTower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, The Tredegar Practice, London, E3 5JD, UK.
Marie-Anne DurandThe Preference Laboratory, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Level 5, Williamson Translational Research Building, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.

Funding

Department of Health 11/1021/02Department of Health 15/77/25Department of Health HS&DR/15/77/25Department of Health HTA/12/192/10Department of Health HTA/13/75/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

methodsIterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

resultsWe included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

conclusionsTo embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth StatusProfessional-Patient RelationsSocial SupportCaregiversHumansNeeds AssessmentMultimorbidityOlder peoplePerson-centred careRealist synthesisShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID30021527
PMCPMC6052575

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.