Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31015274›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Family group decision-making interventions in adult healthcare and welfare: a systematic literature review of its key elements and effectiveness.

Chantal F Hillebregt, Eline W M Scholten, Marcel W M Post, Johanna M A Visser-Meily, Marjolijn Ketelaar

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chantal F HillebregtCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Brain Center University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2959-7835
Eline W M ScholtenCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Brain Center University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3846-0419
Marcel W M PostCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Brain Center University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2205-9404
Johanna M A Visser-MeilyCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Brain Center University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5955-8012
Marjolijn KetelaarCenter of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine Utrecht, Brain Center University Medical Center Utrecht, and De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8324-518X
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily group decision-making (FGDM) is a structured decision-making process, aiming to shift the balance of power from professional towards the person in need and their family. It differentiates from other family-centred meetings by the presence of three key elements: (1) plan with actions/goals, (2) family driven, (3) three phases of meetings gradually increasing empowerment. FGDM studies are increasing in different settings in adult healthcare/welfare, although effectiveness is unknown at this date.

objectives(1) to systematically review the presence of the three FGDM key elements in family-centred interventions in adult care and welfare, (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of FGDM interventions.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: A total of 14 relevant electronic databases and 1 academic search machine were searched until February 2018. First, family-centred studies were selected with controlled trial designs in adult healthcare/welfare. Second, interventions were categorised as FGDM if all three key elements were present. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were examined concerning their (1) characteristics (2) quality/level of evidence (3) presence of FGDM key elements and (4) results.

resultsSix articles from three studies on family-centred interventions were selected from a total of 1680 articles. All were of low quality. One study (two articles) met all criteria for an FGDM intervention, describing the efficacy of family group conferences among social welfare recipients on mental health outcomes. Although the intervention group showed significantly better outcomes after 16-23 weeks; no differences were seen at the 1-year follow-up.

conclusionsControlled studies of both family-centred interventions and FGDM are still low in quantity and quality. No conclusions on FGDM effectiveness can be drawn. Further high-quality intervention studies are required to evaluate the impact of FGDM on adults in need, including their families; as well as evaluation research detecting possible barriers and facilitators influencing FGDM implementation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017077585.

Indexed as

Decision MakingSocial WelfareAdultFamily RelationsHumansProfessional-Family Relationsdecision-makingempowermentfamily-centred medicinepatient-centred medicine

Identifiers

PMID31015274
PMCPMC6500259
OpenAlexW2941326272

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.