Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30844080›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2019

Perspectives of Patients in Identifying Their Values-Based Health Priorities.

Shelli L Feder, Eliza Kiwak, Darcé Costello, Lilian Dindo, Kizzy Hernandez-Bigos, Lauren Vo, Mary Geda, Caroline Blaum, Mary E Tinetti, Aanand D Naik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Shelli L FederNational Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.ORCID 0000-0002-8059-9281
Eliza KiwakDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Darcé CostelloDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Lilian DindoHouston Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Kizzy Hernandez-BigosConnecticut Center for Primary Care, Hartford, Connecticut.
Lauren VoConnecticut Center for Primary Care, Hartford, Connecticut.
Mary GedaDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Caroline BlaumSchool of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York.
Mary E TinettiDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Aanand D NaikHouston Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety (IQuESt), Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Albert C Shaw · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
Claude Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Yale University National Institute on Aging, National Institutes oGordon and Betty Moore FoundationHouston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and SafetyJohn A. Hartford FoundationNCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342Patient-Centered Outcomes Research InstituteRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPatient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI.

designQualitative study using thematic analysis.

settingIn-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews.

participantsTwenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process. MEASUREMENTS: Open-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement.

resultsPatient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits.

conclusionsPatients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.

Indexed as

Health PrioritiesMultiple Chronic ConditionsPatient ParticipationAged, 80 and overFemaleGoalsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleQualitative Researchgoals and goal settingmultimorbidityolder adultspatient prioritiespreferences

Identifiers

PMID30844080
PMCPMC6612577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.