ArticleJAMA network open2024
Patient Priorities-Aligned Care for Older Adults With Multiple Conditions: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.
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.
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.
Patient Priority Care for Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions Achieved Through Primary and Specialty Care Alignment
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health priorities and treatment preferences of adults with epilepsy: A narrative literature review with a systematic search.Epilepsy & behavior : E&B · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Prioritisation Is Treatment: What Generalists Do When Guidelines Collide.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- From Patient Voice to Organizational Adaptability: A Critical Narrative Review and Conceptual Model for Personalized Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical Trials in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Multimorbidity: A Perspective on Pragmatic Trial Design.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Identifying Implementation Needs and Developing Strategies to Optimize Integration of Patient Priorities Care in Primary Care: A Qualitative Formative Evaluation of Two Study Sites.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Equipping Health Systems to Meet Older Adults' Care Needs: A Novel Age-Friendly Patient and Family Advisory Council.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Coronary Artery Revascularization in the Older Adult Population: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2025Review
- Qualitative exploration of how clinicians navigate divergence in older adult and family caregiver priorities.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Assessing what matters most in older emergency department patients.Age and ageing · 2025Observational
- Patient-Centered Measures of Goal Concordance in Geriatrics and Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- The role of life-sustaining treatment witnessed experiences on informed end-of-life choices among the elderly in China.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Designing Values Elicitation Technologies for Mental Health and Chronic Care Integration: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Anticoagulation at the end of life: whether, when, and how to treat.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2024Review
- 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 · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.