Dataset Information

Collaborative goal setting with elderly patients with chronic disease or multimorbidity: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is challenging to use shared decision-making with patients who have a chronic health condition or, especially, multimorbidity. A patient-goal-oriented approach can thus be beneficial. This study aims to identify and evaluate studies on the effects of interventions that support collaborative goal setting or health priority setting compared to usual care for elderly people with a chronic health condition or multimorbidity.

Methods

This systematic review was based on EPOC, PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pubmed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched systematically. The following eligibility criteria were applied: 1. Randomised (cluster) controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series or repeated measures study design; 2. Single intervention directed specifically at collaborative goal setting or health priority setting or a multifactorial intervention including these elements; 3. Study population of patients with multimorbidity or at least one chronic disease (mean age ± standard deviation (SD) incl. age 65). 4. Studies reporting on outcome measures reducible to outcomes for collaborative goal setting or health priority setting.

Results

A narrative analysis was performed. Eight articles describing five unique interventions, including four cluster randomised controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial, were identified. Four intervention studies, representing 904, 183, 387 and 1921 patients respectively, were multifactorial and showed statistically significant effects on the application of goal setting (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) goal setting subscale), the number of advance directives or the inclusion of goals in care plans. Explicit attention for goal setting or priority setting by a professional was a common element in these multifactorial interventions. One study, which implemented a single-factor intervention on 322 patients, did not have significant effects on doctor-patient agreement. All the studies had methodological concerns in varying degrees.

Conclusions

Collaborative goal setting and/or priority setting can probably best be integrated in complex care interventions. Further research should determine the mix of essential elements in a multifactorial intervention to provide recommendations for daily practice. In addition, the necessity of methodological innovation and the application of mixed evaluation models must be highlighted to deal with the complexity of goal setting and/or priority setting intervention studies.

SUBMITTER: Vermunt NPCA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionGoal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.Design and settingCluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.ParticipantsAdults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission.InterventionsGeneral practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation 6 months later. The control group received usual care planning.Outcome measuresHealth-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and healthcare use. All consultations were video-recorded or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients.ResultsFifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years, 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared with 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 min in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting and felt it delivered more patient-centred care, and they highlighted the importance of training.ConclusionsThis goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248305; Post-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature exploring the associations between multimorbidity (the presence of two or more long-term conditions (LTCs)) and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS (1946-2019). The main search terms were 'Chronic Kidney Failure' and 'Multimorbid*'.Eligibility criteriaObservational studies of adults over the age of 18 with CKD stages 3-5, that is, estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The exposure was multimorbidity quantified by measures and the outcomes were all-cause mortality, renal progression, hospitalisation and cardiovascular events. We did not consider CKD as a comorbid LTC.Data extraction and synthesisNewcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality appraisal and risk of bias assessment and fixed effects meta-analysis for data synthesis.ResultsOf 1852 papers identified, 26 met the inclusion criteria. 21 papers involved patients with advanced CKD and no studies were from low or middle-income countries. All-cause mortality was an outcome in all studies. Patients with multimorbidity were at higher risk of mortality compared with patients without multimorbidity (total risk ratio 2.28 (95% CI 1.81 to 2.88)). The risk of mortality was higher with increasing multimorbidity (total HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.36)) and both concordant and discordant LTCs were associated with heightened risk. Multimorbidity was associated with renal progression in four studies, hospitalisation in five studies and cardiovascular events in two studies.LimitationsMeta-analysis could only include 10 of 26 papers as the methodologies of studies were heterogeneous.ConclusionsThere are associations between multimorbidity and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with CKD. However, most data relate to mortality risk in patients with advanced CKD. There is limited evidence regarding patients with mild to moderate CKD, outcomes such as cardiovascular events, types of LTCs and regarding patients from low or middle-income countries.Prospero registration numberCRD42019147424.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, presents significant challenges to patients, healthcare providers and health systems. Despite this, there is ongoing uncertainty about the most effective ways to manage patients with multimorbidity. This review updated and narrowed the focus of a previous Cochrane review and aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings, compared to usual care.MethodsWe searched eight databases and two trials registers up to 9 September 2019. Two review authors independently screened potentially eligible titles and selected studies, extracted data, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). Interventions were grouped by their predominant focus into care-coordination/self-management support, self-management support and medicines management. Main outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, but the synthesis was predominantly narrative.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs with 4753 participants, the majority being older adults with at least three conditions. There were eight care-coordination/self-management support studies, four self-management support studies and four medicines management studies. There was little or no evidence of an effect on primary outcomes of HRQoL (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, I2 = 39%) and mental health or on secondary outcomes with a small number of studies reporting that care coordination may improve patient experience of care and self-management support may improve patient health behaviours. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low due to significant variation in study participants and interventions.ConclusionsThere are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity, despite the growing number of RCTs conducted in this area. Our findings suggest that future research should consider patient experience of care, optimising medicines management and targeted patient health behaviours such as exercise.

Project description:BackgroundInappropriate medication prescription is a common cause of preventable adverse drug events among elderly persons in the primary care setting.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to quantify the extent of inappropriate prescription to elderly persons in the primary care setting.MethodsWe systematically searched Ovid-Medline and Ovid-EMBASE from 1950 and 1980 respectively to March 2012. Two independent reviewers screened and selected primary studies published in English that measured (in)appropriate medication prescription among elderly persons (>65 years) in the primary care setting. We extracted data sources, instruments for assessing medication prescription appropriateness, and the rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions. We grouped the reported individual medications according to the Anatomical Therapeutic and Chemical (ATC) classification and compared the median rate of inappropriate medication prescription and its range within each therapeutic class.ResultsWe included 19 studies, 14 of which used the Beers criteria as the instrument for assessing appropriateness of prescriptions. The median rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions (IMP) was 20.5% [IQR 18.1 to 25.6%.]. Medications with largest median rate of inappropriate medication prescriptions were propoxyphene 4.52 (0.10-23.30)%, doxazosin 3.96 (0.32 15.70)%, diphenhydramine 3.30 (0.02-4.40)% and amitriptiline 3.20 (0.05-20.5)% in a decreasing order of IMP rate. Available studies described unequal sets of medications and different measurement tools to estimate the overall prevalence of inappropriate prescription.ConclusionsApproximately one in five prescriptions to elderly persons in primary care is inappropropriate despite the attention that has been directed to quality of prescription. Diphenhydramine and amitriptiline are the most common inappropriately prescribed medications with high risk adverse events while propoxyphene and doxazoxin are the most commonly prescribed medications with low risk adverse events. These medications are good candidates for being targeted for improvement e.g. by computerized clinical decision support.