Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31747443›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Recommendations of older adults on how to use the PROM 'TOPICS-MDS' in healthcare conversations: A Delphi study.

Ruth E Pel-Littel, Cynthia S Hofman, Liesje Yu, Silke F Metzelthin, Franca H Leeuwis, Jeanet W Blom, B M Buurman, Mirella M Minkman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The development of the evidence-based SDMBMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020
    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

8 authors.

Ruth E Pel-LittelDepartment of Innovation and Research, Vilans, Centre of expertise for long-term care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4618-3837
Cynthia S HofmanDepartment of Innovation and Research, Vilans, Centre of expertise for long-term care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Liesje YuFaculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Silke F MetzelthinDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Franca H LeeuwisDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Jeanet W BlomDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
B M BuurmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mirella M MinkmanDepartment of Innovation and Research, Vilans, Centre of expertise for long-term care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In shared decision making, the exploration of preferred personal health outcomes is important. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide input for discussions between patients and healthcare professionals. The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS) PROM is a multidimensional questionnaire on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of older adults. This study investigates how the TOPICS-MDS could be used in individual healthcare conversations. We explored views of older adults regarding 1) whether the health domains they want to discuss are included in the TOPICS-MDS and 2) the comprehensibility of the TOPICS-MDS for healthcare conversations with older adults. A three-round Delphi study was conducted. A total of 57 older adults participated in the study, the mean (SD) age was 71.5 (8.5) years, and 78.9% of the participants were female. The participants were divided into four panels based on educational level and cultural background. We used online questionnaires and focus groups. Consensus was pre-defined to be the point when ≥75% of the participants agreed that a domain was important or very important (scored on a 5-point Likert scale). The inter-expert agreement was computed for Round 1 and 3 with Kendall's W. Round 2 was a focus-group. Qualitative data were analyzed by content analysis. Older adults considered 'functional limitations', 'emotional wellbeing', 'social functioning' and 'quality of life' to be important domains of the TOPICS-MDS to discuss in healthcare conversations. The participants added 'coping with stress', 'dealing with health conditions and the effects on life' as extra domains for healthcare conversations. Challenges regarding the comprehensibility of the TOPICS-MDS included difficult words and lengthy or sensitive questions. Questions that included multiple topics were difficult to understand. The TOPICS-MDS covers the domains of life that older adults value as important to discuss with healthcare professionals, and two additional domains were identified. For older adults with a low level of education or a culturally diverse background, the TOPICS-MDS needs to be adjusted for comprehensibility.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedAged, 80 and overAgingConsensusCultural CharacteristicsDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMalePractice Guidelines as TopicSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31747443
PMCPMC6867646

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.