Dataset Information

Effects of goal-oriented care for adults with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of goal-oriented care against standard care for multimorbid adults.

Data sources/study setting

The literature presenting the results of randomized trials assessing the outcomes of goal-oriented care compared with usual care for adults with multimorbidity.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data collection/extraction methods

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, trial registries such as ClinicalTrial.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the references of eligible trials and relevant reviews. Goal-oriented care was defined as an approach that engages patients, establishes personal goals, and sets targets for patients and clinicians to plan a course of action and measure outcome. We reviewed 228 trials, and 12 were included. We extracted outcome data on quality of life, hospital admission, patients' satisfaction, patient and caregiver burden. Risk of bias was assessed and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

Principal findings

No study was fully free of bias. No effect was found on quality of life (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.16) and hospital admission (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.17). There was a very small effect for patients' satisfaction (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.29) and caregiver burden (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.00). Certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes.

Conclusions

No firm conclusions can be reached about the effects of goal-oriented care for multimorbid adults. Future research should overcome the shortcomings of trials assessed in this meta-analysis. Sound application of the indications for research of complex healthcare interventions is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Barbato A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9314986 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity is increasingly prevalent and represents a major challenge in primary care. Patients with multimorbidity are potentially more likely to experience safety incidents due to the complexity of their needs and frequency of their interactions with health services. However, rigorous syntheses of the link between patient safety incidents and multimorbidity are not available. This review examined the relationship between multimorbidity and patient safety incidents in primary care.MethodsWe followed our published protocol (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007434). Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched up to May 2015. Study design and quality were assessed. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for the associations between multimorbidity and two categories of patient safety outcomes: 'active patient safety incidents' (such as adverse drug events and medical complications) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (such as prescription errors, medication non-adherence, poor quality of care and diagnostic errors). Meta-analyses using random effects models were undertaken.ResultsEighty six relevant comparisons from 75 studies were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrated that physical-mental multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for 'active patient safety incidents' (OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.40 to 3.38) and 'precursors of safety incidents' (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.03). Physical multimorbidity was associated with an increased risk for active safety incidents (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.45 to 1.80) but was not associated with precursors of safety incidents (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.13). Statistical heterogeneity was high and the methodological quality of the studies was generally low.ConclusionsThe association between multimorbidity and patient safety is complex, and varies by type of multimorbidity and type of safety incident. Our analyses suggest that multimorbidity involving mental health may be a key driver of safety incidents, which has important implication for the design and targeting of interventions to improve safety. High quality studies examining the mechanisms of patient safety incidents in patients with multimorbidity are needed, with the goal of promoting effective service delivery and ameliorating threats to safety in this group of patients.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity among older adults is a growing concern in India. Multimorbidity is defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic health conditions in an individual. Primary studies have been conducted on risk factors of multimorbidity in India, but no systematic review has been conducted on this topic. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the existing evidence on risk factors of multimorbidity among older adults in India.MethodsThe JBI and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed. Several databases were searched for published and unpublished studies until August 03, 2022. The screening of titles and abstracts and full texts, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third reviewer. Data synthesis was conducted using narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis, where appropriate.ResultsOut of 8781 records identified from the literature search, 16 and 15 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. All included studies were cross-sectional, and 10 met a critical appraisal score of more than 70%. Broadly, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health conditions-related factors were explored in these studies. The pooled odds of multimorbidity were higher in people aged ≥70 years compared to 60-69 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.91), females compared to males (1.38; 1.09-1.75), single, divorced, separated, and widowed compared to married (1.29; 1.11-1.49), economically dependent compared to economically independent (1.54; 1.21-1.97), and smokers compared to non-smokers (1.33; 1.16-1.52) and were lower in working compared to not working (0.51; 0.36-0.72).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis provided a comprehensive picture of the problem by synthesizing the existing evidence on risk factors of multimorbidity among older adults in India. These synthesized sociodemographic and lifestyle factors should be taken into consideration when developing health interventions for addressing multimorbidity among older adults in India.

Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.

Project description:IntroductionHealth information systems represent an opportunity to improve the care provided to people with multimorbidity. There is a pressing need to assess their impact on clinical outcomes to validate this intervention. Our study will determine whether using a digital platform (Multimorbidity Management Health Information System, METHIS) to manage multimorbidity improves health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).Methods and analysisA superiority, cluster randomised trial will be conducted at primary healthcare practices (1:1 allocation ratio). All public practices in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley (LVT) Region, Portugal, not involved in a previous pilot trial, will be eligible. At the participant level, eligible patients will be people with complex multimorbidity, aged 50 years or older, with access to an internet connection and a communication technology device. Participants who cannot sign/read/write and who do not have access to an email account will not be included in the study. The intervention combines a training programme and a customised information system (METHIS). Both are designed to help clinicians adopt a goal-oriented care model approach and to encourage patients and carers to play a more active role in autonomous healthcare. The primary outcome is HR-QoL, measured at 12 months with the physical component scale of the 12-item Short Form questionnaire (SF-12). Secondary outcomes will also be measured at 12 months and include mental health (mental component Scale SF-12, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). We will also assess serious adverse events during the trial, including hospitalisation and emergency services. Finally, at 18 months, we will ask the general practitioners for any potentially missed diagnoses.Ethics and disseminationThe Research and Ethics Committee (LVT Region) approved the trial protocol. Clinicians and patients will sign an informed consent. A data management officer will handle all data, and the publication of several scientific papers and presentations at relevant conferences/workshops is envisaged.Trial registration numberNCT05593835.

Project description:BackgroundThe co-design of health care enables patient-centredness by partnering patients, clinicians and other stakeholders together to create services.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of co-designed health interventions for people living with multimorbidity and assessed (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (b) the co-design approaches used and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process with people living with multimorbidity. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO between 2000 and March 2022. Included experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I).ResultsWe screened 14,376 reports, with 13 reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Two reported health and well-being outcomes: one randomised clinical trial (n = 134) and one controlled cohort (n = 1933). Outcome measures included quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, anxiety, depression, functional status, healthcare utilisation and mortality. Outcomes favouring the co-design interventions compared to control were minimal, with only 4 of 17 outcomes considered beneficial. Co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (12 of 13), prototype (11 of 13), pilot testing (5 of 13) (i.e. focus on usability) and health and well-being evaluations (2 of 13). Common challenges to the co-design process include poor stakeholder interest, passive participation, power imbalances and a lack of representativeness in the design group. Enablers include flexibility in approach, smaller group work, advocating for stakeholders' views and commitment to the process or decisions made.ConclusionsIn this systematic review of co-design health interventions, we found that few projects assessed health and well-being outcomes, and the observed health and well-being benefits were minimal. The intensity and variability in the co-design approaches were substantial, and challenges were evident. Co-design aided the design of novel services and interventions for those with multimorbidity, improving their relevance, usability and acceptability. However, the clinical benefits of co-designed interventions for those with multimorbidity are unclear.

Project description:BackgroundIt 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsCollaborative 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.

Project description:Dynamic tests of fluid responsiveness have been developed and investigated in clinical trials of goal-directed therapy. The impact of this approach on clinically relevant outcomes is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether fluid therapy guided by dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness compared with standard care improves clinically relevant outcomes in adults admitted to the ICU.Randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to December 2016, conference proceedings, and reference lists of relevant articles.Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials comparing dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness with standard care for acute volume resuscitation in adults admitted to the ICU.Two reviewers independently abstracted trial-level data including population characteristics, interventions, clinical outcomes, and source of funding. Our primary outcome was mortality at longest duration of follow-up. Our secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and frequency of renal complications. The internal validity of trials was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool.We included 13 trials enrolling 1,652 patients. Methods used to assess fluid responsiveness included stroke volume variation (nine trials), pulse pressure variation (one trial), and stroke volume change with passive leg raise/fluid challenge (three trials). In 12 trials reporting mortality, the risk ratio for death associated with dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.83; I = 0%; n = 1,586). The absolute risk reduction in mortality associated with dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was -2.9% (95% CI, -5.6% to -0.2%). Dynamic assessment of fluid responsiveness was associated with reduced duration of ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference, -1.16 d [95% CI, -1.97 to -0.36]; I = 74%; n = 394, six trials) and mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference, -2.98 hr [95% CI, -5.08 to -0.89]; I = 34%; n = 334, five trials). Three trials were adjudicated at unclear risk of bias; the remaining trials were at high risk of bias.In adult patients admitted to intensive care who required acute volume resuscitation, goal-directed therapy guided by assessment of fluid responsiveness appears to be associated with reduced mortality, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. High-quality clinical trials in both medical and surgical ICU populations are warranted to inform routine care.