ArticleHealth services research2021
A scoping review of person and family engagement in the context of multiple chronic conditions.
Article in Health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Outcomes Related to Nurse Practitioner-Delivered Primary Care for Multiple Chronic Conditions.Medical care research and review : MCRR · 2023Pooled it
- Family Engagement in the ICU: Not Just Information Sharing and Decision-Making.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
- A systematic review of co-production approaches that involve family members, loved ones, or carers in the development of mental health or substance use resources/interventions.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Nurse-Facilitated Self-Management in Peritoneal Dialysis: A Cross-Sectional Study from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Community case study of patient and clinician early engagement in research on multiple chronic conditions using an implementation guide.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Person-Centered Care Planning for People Living With or at Risk for Multiple Chronic Conditions.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Family Involvement in the Care of Hospitalized Older Adults: Protocol for a Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Mental Health Reform: Design and Implementation of a System to Optimize Outcomes for Veterans and Their Families.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comorbidity: From a Confounder in Longitudinal Clinical Research to the Main Issue in Population Management.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2022Article
- Healthcare professional perspectives on barriers and enablers to falls prevention education: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2022Article
- Transforming care for people with multiple chronic conditions: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's research agenda.Health services research · 2021Article
- Removing the blindfold: The centrality of care in caring for patients with multiple chronic conditions.Health services research · 2021Article
- A scoping review of person and family engagement in the context of multiple chronic conditions.Health services research · 2021Article
- Multimorbid heart failure (HF) and cardiorenal metabolic (CaReMe) syndrome, exploring integrated models of care: A scoping review.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityReview
- Self-regulatory coping among community dwelling older adults with multiple chronic conditions.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review definitions, concepts, and evidence regarding person and family engagement for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) in order to identify opportunities to advance the field. DATA SOURCE: Ovid MEDLINE. STUDY
designWe performed a two-step process as follows: (1) a critical review of conceptual models of engagement to identify key concepts most pertinent to engagement among persons with MCC as a "launch pad" to our scoping review and (2) a scoping review of reviews of engagement for persons living with MCC. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsFirst, we critically reviewed six models of engagement. Second, our scoping review identified 1297 citations, with 67 articles meeting criteria for inclusion. Of these, we focused on reviews, of which there were nine titles/abstracts retained for full-text consideration. Six full-text reviews were included in the final analysis. The purpose, review type, population, number/type of included studies, theoretical framework, and findings of each study were extracted and analyzed thematically. PRINCIPAL
findingsConceptual models of engagement differ with respect to areas of emphasis (e.g., systems or clinical encounters) as well as attention to vulnerable populations, involvement of family, consideration of cost-benefit trade-offs, and attention to outcomes that matter most. Our scoping review of reviews identified just one article explicitly focused on engagement interventions for those with MCC. Other reviews examined elements of self-management and involvement in decision making, conceptually related to engagement without explicit use of the word. We find that existing evidence has predominantly described individual-level strategies rather than targeting organizations, systems, or policies. Barriers to engagement are not well described nor are potential downsides to engagement. Family engagement is rarely considered.
conclusionsPromising areas of future work include attention to barriers to engagement including trust, goal-based care, the design of structural changes to care delivery, trade-offs between benefits and costs, and family engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.