Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38261319›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Patient Priorities-Aligned Care for Older Adults With Multiple Conditions: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Mary E Tinetti, Ardeshir Hashmi, Henry Ng, Margaret Doyle, Toyomi Goto, Jessica Esterson, Aanand D Naik, Lilian Dindo, Fan Li

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04510948 (Patient Priority Care for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions Achieved Through Primary and Specialty Care Alignment), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
27.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04510948 nacompletednot on this map

Patient Priority Care for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions Achieved Through Primary and Specialty Care Alignment

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe Cleveland ClinicRan2020 to 2023Enrolled264ConditionsMultiple Chronic ConditionsArmsPatient Priorities Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Anticoagulation at the end of life: whether, when, and how to treat.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024
    Review
  15. Hospital-free days: A novel measure to study outcomes for emergency department care.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2024
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mary E TinettiDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Ardeshir HashmiCenter for Geriatric Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Henry NgDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Margaret DoyleDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Toyomi GotoCenter for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Jessica EstersonDepartment of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Aanand D NaikInstitute on Aging, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.
Lilian DindoHouston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
Fan LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut.
Yale University · USCleveland Clinic · USCenter for Innovation · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Yale Study Support Suite (YES3): Dashboard and Web Portal Software Supporting Research Workflow through integrated, customizable REDCap External ModulesP30AG021342 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Denise Esserman · 2002 to 2026
$37.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIA NIH HHS P30 AG021342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Older adults with multiple conditions receive health care that may be burdensome, of uncertain benefit, and not focused on what matters to them. Identifying and aligning care with patients' health priorities may improve outcomes. Objective: To assess the association of receiving patient priorities care (PPC) vs usual care (UC) with relevant clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this nonrandomized controlled trial with propensity adjustment, enrollment occurred between August 21, 2020, and May 14, 2021, with follow-up continuing through February 26, 2022. Patients who were aged 65 years or older and with 3 or more chronic conditions were enrolled at 1 PPC and 1 UC site within the Cleveland Clinic primary care multisite practice. Data analysis was performed from March 2022 to August 2023. Intervention: Health professionals at the PPC site guided patients through identification of values, health outcome goals, health care preferences, and top priority (ie, health problem they most wanted to focus on because it impeded their health outcome goal). Primary clinicians followed PPC decisional strategies (eg, use patients' health priorities as focus of communication and decision-making) to decide with patients what care to stop, start, or continue. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included perceived treatment burden, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social roles and activities, CollaboRATE survey scores, the number of nonhealthy days (based on healthy days at home), and shared prescribing decision quality measures. Follow-up was at 9 months for patient-reported outcomes and 365 days for nonhealthy days. Results: A total of 264 individuals participated, 129 in the PPC group (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [6.1] years; 66 women [48.9%]) and 135 in the UC group (mean [SD] age, 75.6 [6.5] years; 55 women [42.6%]). Characteristics between sites were balanced after propensity score weighting. At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in perceived treatment burden score between groups in multivariate models (difference, -5.2 points; 95% CI, -10.9 to -0.50 points; P = .07). PPC participants were almost 2.5 times more likely than UC participants to endorse shared prescribing decision-making (adjusted odds ratio, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.90 to 6.40; P = .07), and participants in the PPC group experienced 4.6 fewer nonhealthy days (95% CI, -12.9 to -3.6 days; P = .27) compared with the UC participants. These differences were not statistically significant. CollaboRATE and PROMIS Social Roles and Activities scores were similar in the 2 groups at follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: This nonrandomized trial of priorities-aligned care showed no benefit for social roles or CollaboRATE. While the findings for perceived treatment burden and shared prescribing decision-making were not statistically significant, point estimates for the findings suggested that PPC may hold promise for improving these outcomes. Randomized trials with larger samples are needed to determine the effectiveness of priorities-aligned care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510948.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Care FacilitiesPatient CareAgedCommunicationData AnalysisDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID38261319
PMCPMC10807252
OpenAlexW4391132534

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.