Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32051314›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Priorities of patients with multimorbidity and of clinicians regarding treatment and health outcomes: a systematic mixed studies review.

Harini Sathanapally, Manbinder Sidhu, Radia Fahami, Clare Gillies, Umesh Kadam, Melanie J Davies, Kamlesh Khunti, Samuel Seidu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

55 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Qualitative Study to Explore the Influence of Condition Prioritisation in People With Coexisting Diabetes and Hypertension on Medication Adherence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 'And don't say everything will be normal!': An international cross-sectional survey on the patients' unmet sexual wellbeing needs after ostomy formation.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Harini SathanapallyUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK hs333@student.le.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8283-1411
Manbinder SidhuSchool of Social Policy, Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Radia FahamiUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Clare GilliesUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Umesh KadamUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Melanie J DaviesUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.
Kamlesh KhuntiUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2343-7099
Samuel SeiduUniversity of Leicester Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify studies that have investigated the health outcome and treatment priorities of patients with multimorbidity, clinicians or both, in order to assess whether the priorities of the two groups are in alignment, or whether a disparity exists between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane databases from inception to May 2019 using a predefined search strategy, as well as reference lists containing any relevant articles, as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane guidelines. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included studies reporting health outcome and treatment priorities of adult patients with multimorbidity, defined as suffering from two or more chronic conditions, or of clinicians in the context of multimorbidity or both. There was no restriction by study design, and studies using quantitative and/or qualitative methodologies were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used a narrative synthesis approach to synthesise the quantitative findings, and a meta-ethnography approach to synthesise the qualitative findings.

resultsOur search identified 24 studies for inclusion, which comprised 12 quantitative studies, 10 qualitative studies and 2 mixed-methods studies. Twelve studies reported the priorities of both patients and clinicians, 10 studies reported the priorities of patients and 2 studies reported the priorities of clinicians alone. Our findings have shown a mostly low level of agreement between the priorities of patients with multimorbidity and clinicians. We found that prioritisation by patients was mainly driven by their illness experiences, while clinicians focused on longer-term risks. Preserving functional ability emerged as a key priority for patients from across our quantitative and qualitative analyses.

conclusionRecognising that there may be a disparity in prioritisation and understanding the reasons for why this might occur, can facilitate clinicians in accurately eliciting the priorities that are most important to their patients and delivering patient-centred care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018076076.

Indexed as

MultimorbidityPatient Outcome AssessmentChronic DiseaseHumansgeneral medicine (see internal medicine)primary carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID32051314
PMCPMC7045037

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.