Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33117558›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2020

Randomised feasibility trial and embedded qualitative process evaluation of a new intervention to facilitate the involvement of older patients with multimorbidity in decision-making about their healthcare during general practice consultations: the VOLITION study protocol.

Joanne Butterworth, Suzanne Richards, Fiona Warren, Emma Pitchforth, John Campbell

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03786315 (Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT03786315 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Exploring 'VOLITION' in Context - a Study to Inform the Implementation of a New Intervention

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of ExeterRan2021 to 2022Enrolled72ConditionsDecision Making, Aged, Multimorbidity, General Practice
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Joanne ButterworthExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Room 110, Smeall building, St Luke's campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9428-3184
Suzanne RichardsLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Fiona WarrenExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Room 110, Smeall building, St Luke's campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
Emma PitchforthExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Room 110, Smeall building, St Luke's campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.
John CampbellExeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter Medical School, Room 110, Smeall building, St Luke's campus, Magdalen Road, Exeter, EX1 2LU UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2017-10-005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of older people with multiple health problems is increasing worldwide. This creates a strain on clinicians and the health service when delivering clinical care to this patient group, who themselves carry a large treatment burden. Despite shared decision-making being acknowledged by healthcare organisations as a priority feature of clinical care, older patients with multimorbidity are less often involved in decision-making when compared with younger patients, with some evidence suggesting associated health inequalities. Interventions aimed at facilitating shared decision-making between doctors and patients are outdated in their assessments of today's older patient population who need support in prioritising complex care needs in order to maximise quality of life and day-to-day function.

aimsTo undertake feasibility testing of an intervention ('VOLITION') aimed at facilitating the involvement of older patients with more than one long-term health problem in shared decision-making about their healthcare during GP consultations.To inform the design of a fully powered trial to assess intervention effectiveness.

methodsThis study is a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with qualitative process evaluation interviews. Participants are patients, aged 65 years and above with more than one long-term health problem (multimorbidity), and the GPs that they consult with. This study aims to recruit 6 GP practices, 18 GPs and 180 patients. The intervention comprises two components: (i) a half-day training workshop for GPs in shared decision-making; and (ii) a leaflet for patients that facilitate their engagement with shared decision-making. Intervention implementation will take 2 weeks (to complete delivery of both patient and GP components), and follow-up duration will be 12 weeks (from index consultation and commencement of data collection to final case note review and process evaluation interview). The trial will run from 01/01/20 to 31/01/21; 1 year 31 days. DISCUSSION: Shared decision-making for older people with multimorbidity in general practice is under-researched. Emerging clinical guidelines advise a patient-centred approach, to reduce treatment burden and focus on quality of life alongside disease control. The systematic development, testing and evaluation of an intervention is warranted and timely. This study will test the feasibility of implementing a new intervention in UK general practice for future evaluation as a part of routine care.

trial registrationCLINICAL TRIALS.GOV registration number NCT03786315, registered 24/12/18.

Indexed as

ElderlyMultimorbidityOlder peoplePatient involvementPrimary careShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33117558
PMCPMC7586675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.