Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36973176›Full record

ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.

Marleen Kunneman, Derek Gravholt, Sandra A Hartasanchez, Michael R Gionfriddo, Zoe Paskins, Larry J Prokop, Anne M Stiggelbout, Victor M Montori

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    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

8 authors.

Marleen KunnemanDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5334-1085
Derek GravholtKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Sandra A HartasanchezKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Michael R GionfriddoDivision of Pharmaceutical, Social and Administrative Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Zoe PaskinsSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Larry J ProkopMayo Clinic Libraries, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Anne M StiggelboutDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0595-2898

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 016.196.138
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient-clinician collaboration to make care fit.

methodsWe systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described.

resultsWe included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient-clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient-clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). DISCUSSION: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient-clinician collaboration.

Indexed as

making care fitmedical decision makingpatient-clinician communicationpatient involvementshared decision making

Identifiers

PMID36973176
PMCPMC10349223

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.