Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33419389›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

Kristie Rebecca Weir, Vasi Naganathan, Stacy M Carter, Chun Wah Michael Tam, Kirsten McCaffery, Carissa Bonner, Debbie Rigby, Andrew J McLachlan, Jesse Jansen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Communication Processes Related to Decision-Making in Medication Management Between Healthcare Providers, Older People and Their Carers: A Systematic Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Consumer Attitudes Towards Deprescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kristie Rebecca WeirSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia. kristie.weir@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9507-5050
Vasi NaganathanCentre for Education and Research on Ageing (CERA), Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Stacy M CarterAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values (ACHEEV), School of Health and Society, Faculty of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Keiraville, New South Wales, 2522, Australia.
Chun Wah Michael TamPrimary and Integrated Care Unit, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Liverpool, New South Wales, 2170, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Carissa BonnerSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Debbie RigbySchool of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, Queensland, 4000, Australia.
Andrew J McLachlanCentre for Education and Research on Ageing (CERA), Concord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
Jesse JansenSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUQueensland University of Technology · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients' overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs' perspectives on the importance of discussing patients' goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis.

resultsThe results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients' goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients' goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients' goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority - 'Directive'; 2) goals seen as central - 'Goal-oriented'; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited - 'Tacit'.

conclusionsThis study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients' goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients' goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines.

Indexed as

General PractitionersGoalsAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelHumansPatient ParticipationPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchCommunicationComplexityDeprescribingGoalsMultimorbidityOlder adultsPolypharmacyPrimary careShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID33419389
PMCPMC7796626
OpenAlexW3119690582

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.