16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

          Methods

          Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders ( n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

          Results

          We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

          Conclusions

          To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature.

          A 'patient-centred' approach is increasingly regarded as crucial for the delivery of high quality care by doctors. However, there is considerable ambiguity concerning the exact meaning of the term and the optimum method of measuring the process and outcomes of patient-centred care. This paper reviews the conceptual and empirical literature in order to develop a model of the various aspects of the doctor-patient relationship encompassed by the concept of 'patient-centredness' and to assess the advantages and disadvantages of alternative methods of measurement. Five conceptual dimensions are identified: biopsychosocial perspective; 'patient-as-person'; sharing power and responsibility; therapeutic alliance; and 'doctor-as-person'. Two main approaches to measurement are evaluated: self-report instruments and external observation methods. A number of recommendations concerning the measurement of patient-centredness are made.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes.

            Despite widespread advocacy for shared decision making (SDM), the empirical evidence regarding its effectiveness to improve patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the empirical evidence linking patient outcomes and SDM, when the decision-making process has been explicitly measured, and to identify under what measurement perspectives SDM is associated with which types of patient outcomes (affective-cognitive, behavioral, and health). PubMed (through December 2012) and hand search of article bibliographies. Studies were included if they empirically 1) measured SDM in the context of a patient-clinician interaction and 2) evaluated the relationship between SDM and at least 1 patient outcome. Study results were categorized by SDM measurement perspective (patient-reported, clinician-reported, or observer-rated) and outcome type (affective-cognitive, behavioral, or health). Thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-three used patient-reported measures of SDM, 6 used observer-rated measures, and 2 used clinician-reported measures. Ninety-seven unique patient outcomes were assessed; 51% affective-cognitive, 28% behavioral, and 21% health. Only 43% of assessments (n = 42) found a significant and positive relationship between SDM and the patient outcome. This proportion varied by SDM measurement perspective and outcome category. It was found that 52% of outcomes assessed with patient-reported SDM were significant and positive, compared with 21% with observer-rated and 0% with clinician-reported SDM. Regardless of measurement perspective, SDM was most likely to be associated with affective-cognitive patient outcomes (54%), compared with 37% of behavioral and 25% of health outcomes. The relatively small number of studies precludes meta-analysis. Because the study inclusion and exclusion criteria required both an empirical measure of SDM and an assessment of the association between that measure and a patient outcome, most included studies were observational in design. SDM, when perceived by patients as occurring, tends to result in improved affective-cognitive outcomes. Evidence is lacking for the association between empirical measures of SDM and patient behavioral and health outcomes. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

              Background Interventions that have a better than random chance of increasing nurses' use of research are important to the delivery of quality patient care. However, few reports exist of successful research utilization in nursing interventions. Systematic identification and evaluation of individual characteristics associated with and predicting research utilization may inform the development of research utilization interventions. Objective To update the evidence published in a previous systematic review on individual characteristics influencing research utilization by nurses. Methods As part of a larger systematic review on research utilization instruments, 12 online bibliographic databases were searched. Hand searching of specialized journals and an ancestry search was also conducted. Randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational study designs examining the association between individual characteristics and nurses' use of research were eligible for inclusion. Studies were limited to those published in the English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian languages. A vote counting approach to data synthesis was taken. Results A total of 42,770 titles were identified, of which 501 were retrieved. Of these 501 articles, 45 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Articles assessed research utilization in general (n = 39) or kinds of research utilization (n = 6) using self-report survey measures. Individual nurse characteristics were classified according to six categories: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, education, professional characteristics, and socio-demographic/socio-economic characteristics. A seventh category, critical thinking, emerged in studies examining kinds of research utilization. Positive relationships, at statistically significant levels, for general research utilization were found in four categories: beliefs and attitudes, information seeking, education, and professional characteristics. The only characteristic assessed in a sufficient number of studies and with consistent findings for the kinds of research utilization was attitude towards research; this characteristic had a positive association with instrumental and overall research utilization. Conclusions This review reinforced conclusions in the previous review with respect to positive relationships between general research utilization and: beliefs and attitudes, and current role. Furthermore, attending conferences/in-services, having a graduate degree in nursing, working in a specialty area, and job satisfaction were also identified as individual characteristics important to research utilization. While these findings hold promise as potential targets of future research utilization interventions, there were methodological problems inherent in many of the studies that necessitate their findings be replicated in further research using more robust study designs and multivariate assessment methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                f.bunn@herts.ac.uk
                c.goodman@herts.ac.uk
                b.s.russell@herts.ac.uk
                p.m.wilson@kent.ac.uk
                jill.manthorpe@kcl.ac.uk
                g.rait@ucl.ac.uk
                Isabel.hodkinson@nhs.net
                marie-anne.durant@dartmouth.edu
                Journal
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2318
                18 July 2018
                18 July 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 165
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2161 9644, GRID grid.5846.f, Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, , University of Hertfordshire, ; College Lane, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9AB UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2232 2818, GRID grid.9759.2, Centre for Health Service Studies, , University of Kent, ; George Allen Wing, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NF UK
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, , King’s College London, ; Strand, London, WC2B 4LL UK
                [4 ]ISNI 0000000121901201, GRID grid.83440.3b, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, , UCL Medical School (Royal Free Campus), ; Rowland Hill Street, London, NW3 2PF UK
                [5 ]Tower Hamlets Clinical Commissioning Group, The Tredegar Practice, London, E3 5JD UK
                [6 ]GRID grid.414049.c, The Preference Laboratory, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, ; Level 5, Williamson Translational Research Building, Lebanon, New Hampshire USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5885-918X
                Article
                853
                10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9
                6052575
                30021527
                ab66aa11-4245-4b27-bb91-bee375237676
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 20 March 2018
                : 28 June 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 15/77/25
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Geriatric medicine
                shared decision making,person-centred care,realist synthesis,multimorbidity,older people

                Comments

                Comment on this article