Dataset Information

GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To synthesise the existing published literature on the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) or their equivalent on the clinical management of multimorbidity and determine targets for future research that aims to improve clinical care in multimorbidity.

Design

Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore GPs' experiences of clinical management of multimorbidity or multiple chronic diseases.

Data sources

EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, SocIndex, Social Science Full Text and digital theses/online libraries (database inception to September 2012) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups or interviews).

Review methods

The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data.

Results

Of 1805 articles identified, 37 were reviewed in detail and 10 were included, using a total of 275 GPs in 7 different countries. Four areas of difficulty specific to the management of multimorbidity emerged from these papers: disorganisation and fragmentation of healthcare; the inadequacy of guidelines and evidence-based medicine; challenges in delivering patient-centred care; and barriers to shared decision-making. A 'line of argument' was drawn which described GPs' sense of isolation in decision-making for multimorbid patients.

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that the problem areas for GPs in the management of multimorbidity may be classified into four domains. There will be no 'one size fits all' intervention for multimorbidity but these domains may be useful targets to guide the development of interventions that will assist and improve the provision of care to multimorbid patients.

SUBMITTER: Sinnott C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3773648 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.

Sinnott Carol C Mc Hugh Sheena S Browne John J Bradley Colin C

BMJ open 20130913 9

<h4>Objective</h4>To synthesise the existing published literature on the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) or their equivalent on the clinical management of multimorbidity and determine targets for future research that aims to improve clinical care in multimorbidity.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore GPs' experiences of clinical management of multimorbidity or multiple chronic diseases.<h4>Data sour ...[more]

PMID: 24038011

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMost consultations in primary care involve patients suffering from multimorbidity. Nevertheless, few studies exist on the clinical reasoning processes of general practitioners (GPs) during the follow-up of these patients. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise published evidence on how GPs reason and make decisions when managing patients with multimorbidity in the long term.MethodsA search of the relevant literature from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases was conducted in June 2019. The search terms were selected from five domains: primary care, clinical reasoning, chronic disease, multimorbidity, and issues of multimorbidity. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English and French were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsA total of 2 165 abstracts and 362 full-text articles were assessed. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Results showcased that GPs' clinical reasoning during the long-term management of multimorbidity is about setting intermediate goals of care in an ongoing process that adapts to the patients' constant evolution and contributes to preserve their quality of life. In the absence of guidelines adapted to multimorbidity, there is no single correct plan, but competing priorities and unavoidable uncertainties. Thus, GPs have to consider and weigh multiple factors simultaneously. In the context of multimorbidity, GPs describe their reasoning as essentially intuitive and seem to perceive it as less accurate. These clinical reasoning processes are nevertheless more analytical as they might think and rooted in deep knowledge of the individual patient.ConclusionsAlthough the challenges GPs are facing in the long-term follow-up of patients suffering from multimorbidity are increasingly known, the literature currently offers limited information about GPs' clinical reasoning processes at play. GPs tend to underestimate the complexity and richness of their clinical reasoning, which may negatively impact their practice and their teaching.

Project description:BACKGROUND:General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care. METHODS:Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies. RESULTS:Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk. CONCLUSIONS:GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient's unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual's capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships.

Project description:Introduction: Multimorbidity is increasingly important due to its high disease burden, prevalence and related high healthcare utilisation. For patients, there is also a high financial burden due to direct and indirect costs arising from their multimorbidity. It is unclear how this financial burden affects patients. This study aims to synthesise qualitative evidence exploring the experience of financial burden from the perspective of patients with multimorbidity. Methods: The review will be reported using the ENTREQ guidelines. A systematic search of Lilacs, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts will be conducted using a predefined search strategy. A search of fourteen pre-specified websites will be conducted for grey literature. Forward and backward citation checking of included studies will be conducted also. Studies will be included if they contain primary qualitative research and reference the experience of financial burden from the perspective of adult (? 18 years) community dwelling patients with multimorbidity. Studies from any country and in any language will be included. Titles and abstracts of search results will be screened; if a study appears relevant, then full-texts will be screened for eligibility. Study characteristics of included articles will be extracted. Study quality will be evaluated using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research. These three processes will be carried out by two reviewers independently. Thematic-synthesis will be used to analyse data. This will be carried out by one reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The GRADE CERQual approach will be used to assess the overall confidence in the evidence. Discussion: This review will identify evidence on the experiences of financial burden for patients with multimorbidity and forms part of a project to support consideration of financial burden for patients in the development of clinical guidelines in Ireland. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019135284.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the findings from individual qualitative studies on patients' understanding and experiences of hypertension and drug taking; to investigate whether views differ internationally by culture or ethnic group and whether the research could inform interventions to improve adherence.DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis of qualitative research using the 2006 UK Economic and Social Research Council research methods programme guidance.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, the British Nursing Index, Social Policy and Practice, and PsycInfo from inception to October 2011.Study selectionQualitative interviews or focus groups among people with uncomplicated hypertension (studies principally in people with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease, or pregnancy related hypertension were excluded).Results59 papers reporting on 53 qualitative studies were included in the synthesis. These studies came from 16 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Ghana, Iran, Israel, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Tanzania, and Thailand). A large proportion of participants thought hypertension was principally caused by stress and produced symptoms, particularly headache, dizziness, and sweating. Participants widely intentionally reduced or stopped treatment without consulting their doctor. Participants commonly perceived that their blood pressure improved when symptoms abated or when they were not stressed, and that treatment was not needed at these times. Participants disliked treatment and its side effects and feared addiction. These findings were consistent across countries and ethnic groups. Participants also reported various external factors that prevented adherence, including being unable to find time to take the drugs or to see the doctor; having insufficient money to pay for treatment; the cost of appointments and healthy food; a lack of health insurance; and forgetfulness.ConclusionsNon-adherence to hypertension treatment often resulted from patients' understanding of the causes and effects of hypertension; particularly relying on the presence of stress or symptoms to determine if blood pressure was raised. These beliefs were remarkably similar across ethnic and geographical groups; calls for culturally specific education for individual ethnic groups may therefore not be justified. To improve adherence, clinicians and educational interventions must better understand and engage with patients' ideas about causality, experiences of symptoms, and concerns about drug side effects.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Diabetes self-management education is a key aspect in the long-term management of type 2 diabetes. The patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspective on the use of technology-assisted DSME has yet to be studied. Hence, the objective of this study was to better understand the factors that facilitate or hinder the adoptions of such education by adults with type 2 diabetes and their HCPs. METHODS:We systematically searched five databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, and PsycINFO) until August 2019. The search included qualitative and mixed-method studies that reported the views of patients and HCPs regarding features, uses, and implementations of technology-assisted DSME. Data were synthesized through an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS:A total of 13 articles were included, involving 242 patients, ranging from 18 to 81 years and included web-based, mobile application, digital versatile disc (DVD), virtual reality or telehealth interventions. Patients and HCPs had mixed views towards features of the technology-assisted interventions, with patients' personal qualities and HCPs' concerns affecting uses of the interventions. Patients generally preferred technologies that were easy to access, use, and apply and that had reliable information. Patients' ambitions motivated them, and personal attributes such as poor competence with technology, poor literacy, and language barriers acted as barriers. Patients especially liked the peer support that they received but did not like it when there was no regulation of advice on these platforms. HCPs believed that while the interventions were useful to patients, they faced difficulties with integration into their clinical workflows. CONCLUSION:This review explored the features of technology-assisted diabetes self-management education interventions that enhanced positive patient engagements and the negative aspects of both the platforms and the target groups. Technical support and training will be effective in managing these concerns and ensuring meaningful use of these platforms.

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesize existing qualitative literature on patient-experienced burden of treatment in multimorbid patients.MethodsA literature search identified available qualitative studies on the topic of burden of treatment in multimorbidity and meta-ethnography was applied as method. The authors' original findings were preserved, but also synthesized to new interpretations to investigate the concept of the burden of treatment using the Cumulative Complexity Model.ResultsNine qualitative studies were identified. The majority of the 1367 participants from 34 different countries were multimorbid. The treatment burden components, experienced by patients, were identified for each study. The components financial burden, lack of knowledge, diet and exercise, medication burden and frequent healthcare reminding patients of their health problem were found to attract additional attention from the multimorbid patients. In studies conducted in the US and Australia the financial burden and the time and travel burden were found most straining to patients with deprived socioeconomic status. The burden of treatment was found to be a complex concept consisting of many different components and factors interacting with each other. The size of the burden was associated to the workload of demands (number of conditions, number of medications and health status), the capacity (cognitive, physical and financial resources, educational level, cultural background, age, gender and employment conditions) and the context (structure of healthcare and social support). Patients seem to use strategies such as prioritizing between treatments to diminish the workload and mobilizing and coordinating resources to improve their ability to manage the burden of treatment. They try to routinize and integrate the treatment into their daily lives, which might be a way to maintain the balance between workload and capacity.ConclusionsHealthcare providers need to increase the focus on minimizing multimorbid patients' burden of treatment. Findings in this review suggest that the weight of the burden needs to be established in the individual patient and components of the burden must be identified.

Dataset Information

GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Review methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

GPs' perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure