Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis

the Participatory Review Team

doi:10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5

Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis

the Participatory Review Team

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor’s explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes). Results: We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: ‘prioritization’ (n = 26), ‘use of services’ (n = 22), ‘prescription’ (n = 12), ‘behavior change’ (n = 4) and ‘institutionalization’ (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: ‘well-managed’ (n = 13), ‘asymmetric encounters’ (n = 21), ‘self-management by default’ (n = 8), and ‘chaotic’ (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making. Conclusion: Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.

Original language	English (US)
Article number	279
Journal	BMC Primary Care
Volume	23
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5
State	Published - Dec 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
PP (principal investigator) & FL (co- principal investigator). This work is funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research grant number 201630KRS-367087. This review was sponsored by the Quebec-SPOR SUPPORT Unit (Unité de Soutien SSA Québec). The funders had no role in study design, data set collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Funding Information:
Participatory Review Team Representative: Quan Nha Hong4. Others Team members (alphabetical order): Marie-Claude Beaulieu,5Paula L. Bush,2Yves Couturier,6Reem El Sherif,2Justin Gagnon,7Anik Giguère,3Genevieve Gore,7Serge Goulet,5Roland Grad2, Vera Granikov,2Catherine Hudon,5Edeltraut Kröger,8Irina Kudrina,2Christine Loignon,5Marie-Therese Lussier,9Marie-Eve Poitras,5Rebekah Pratt,10Benoît Rihoux,11Nicolas Senn,12Isabelle Vedel,2Michel Wensing13.4School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.5Department of Family Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.6School of Social Work, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.7Department of Community Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.8McGill Library, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.9Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.10Department of Family Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.11Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.12Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States of America.13Centre de Science Politique et de Politique Comparée, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.14Université de Lausanne, Switzerland.15Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).

Keywords

Decisional needs
Interprofessional coordination
Multimorbidity
Patient-practitioner communication
Patients with complex care needs
Polypharmacy
Primary care
Shared decision-making
Vulnerable population

Publisher link

10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{eae6d98cd1de4b13a06e528d5d589d0a,

title = "Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis",

abstract = "Background: In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor{\textquoteright}s explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes). Results: We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: {\textquoteleft}prioritization{\textquoteright} (n = 26), {\textquoteleft}use of services{\textquoteright} (n = 22), {\textquoteleft}prescription{\textquoteright} (n = 12), {\textquoteleft}behavior change{\textquoteright} (n = 4) and {\textquoteleft}institutionalization{\textquoteright} (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: {\textquoteleft}well-managed{\textquoteright} (n = 13), {\textquoteleft}asymmetric encounters{\textquoteright} (n = 21), {\textquoteleft}self-management by default{\textquoteright} (n = 8), and {\textquoteleft}chaotic{\textquoteright} (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making. Conclusion: Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.",

keywords = "Decisional needs, Interprofessional coordination, Multimorbidity, Patient-practitioner communication, Patients with complex care needs, Polypharmacy, Primary care, Shared decision-making, Vulnerable population",

author = "{the Participatory Review Team} and Mathieu Bujold and Pierre Pluye and France L{\'e}gar{\'e} and Hong, {Quan Nha} and Beaulieu, {Marie Claude} and Bush, {Paula L.} and Yves Couturier and {El Sherif}, Reem and Justin Gagnon and Anik Gigu{\`e}re and Genevieve Gore and Serge Goulet and Roland Grad and Vera Granikov and Catherine Hudon and Edeltraut Kr{\"o}ger and Irina Kudrina and Christine Loignon and Lussier, {Marie Therese} and Poitras, {Marie Eve} and Rebekah Pratt and Beno{\^i}t Rihoux and Nicolas Senn and Isabelle Vedel and Michel Wensin",

note = "Funding Information: PP (principal investigator) & FL (co- principal investigator). This work is funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research grant number 201630KRS-367087. This review was sponsored by the Quebec-SPOR SUPPORT Unit (Unit{\'e} de Soutien SSA Qu{\'e}bec). The funders had no role in study design, data set collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: Participatory Review Team Representative: Quan Nha Hong4. Others Team members (alphabetical order): Marie-Claude Beaulieu,5Paula L. Bush,2Yves Couturier,6Reem El Sherif,2Justin Gagnon,7Anik Gigu{\`e}re,3Genevieve Gore,7Serge Goulet,5Roland Grad2, Vera Granikov,2Catherine Hudon,5Edeltraut Kr{\"o}ger,8Irina Kudrina,2Christine Loignon,5Marie-Therese Lussier,9Marie-Eve Poitras,5Rebekah Pratt,10Beno{\^i}t Rihoux,11Nicolas Senn,12Isabelle Vedel,2Michel Wensing13.4School of Rehabilitation, Universit{\'e} de Montr{\'e}al, Montreal, Canada.5Department of Family Medicine, Universit{\'e} de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.6School of Social Work, Universit{\'e} de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.7Department of Community Health Sciences, Universit{\'e} de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.8McGill Library, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.9Faculty of Pharmacy, Universit{\'e} Laval, Quebec City, Canada.10Department of Family Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.11Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Universit{\'e} de Montr{\'e}al, Montreal, Canada.12Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States of America.13Centre de Science Politique et de Politique Compar{\'e}e, Universit{\'e} catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.14Universit{\'e} de Lausanne, Switzerland.15Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "23",

journal = "BMC Primary Care",

issn = "1471-2296",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings

T2 - a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis

AU - the Participatory Review Team

AU - Bujold, Mathieu

AU - Pluye, Pierre

AU - Légaré, France

AU - Hong, Quan Nha

AU - Beaulieu, Marie Claude

AU - Bush, Paula L.

AU - Couturier, Yves

AU - El Sherif, Reem

AU - Gagnon, Justin

AU - Giguère, Anik

AU - Gore, Genevieve

AU - Goulet, Serge

AU - Grad, Roland

AU - Granikov, Vera

AU - Hudon, Catherine

AU - Kröger, Edeltraut

AU - Kudrina, Irina

AU - Loignon, Christine

AU - Lussier, Marie Therese

AU - Poitras, Marie Eve

AU - Pratt, Rebekah

AU - Rihoux, Benoît

AU - Senn, Nicolas

AU - Vedel, Isabelle

AU - Wensin, Michel

N1 - Funding Information: PP (principal investigator) & FL (co- principal investigator). This work is funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research grant number 201630KRS-367087. This review was sponsored by the Quebec-SPOR SUPPORT Unit (Unité de Soutien SSA Québec). The funders had no role in study design, data set collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Funding Information: Participatory Review Team Representative: Quan Nha Hong4. Others Team members (alphabetical order): Marie-Claude Beaulieu,5Paula L. Bush,2Yves Couturier,6Reem El Sherif,2Justin Gagnon,7Anik Giguère,3Genevieve Gore,7Serge Goulet,5Roland Grad2, Vera Granikov,2Catherine Hudon,5Edeltraut Kröger,8Irina Kudrina,2Christine Loignon,5Marie-Therese Lussier,9Marie-Eve Poitras,5Rebekah Pratt,10Benoît Rihoux,11Nicolas Senn,12Isabelle Vedel,2Michel Wensing13.4School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.5Department of Family Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.6School of Social Work, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.7Department of Community Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada.8McGill Library, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.9Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.10Department of Family Medicine and Department of Anesthesiology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.11Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.12Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States of America.13Centre de Science Politique et de Politique Comparée, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.14Université de Lausanne, Switzerland.15Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).

PY - 2022/12

Y1 - 2022/12

N2 - Background: In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor’s explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes). Results: We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: ‘prioritization’ (n = 26), ‘use of services’ (n = 22), ‘prescription’ (n = 12), ‘behavior change’ (n = 4) and ‘institutionalization’ (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: ‘well-managed’ (n = 13), ‘asymmetric encounters’ (n = 21), ‘self-management by default’ (n = 8), and ‘chaotic’ (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making. Conclusion: Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.

AB - Background: In primary care, patients increasingly face difficult decisions related to complex care needs (multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mental health issues, social vulnerability and structural barriers). There is a need for a pragmatic conceptual model to understand decisional needs among patients with complex care needs and outcomes related to decision. We aimed to identify types of decisional needs among patients with complex care needs, and decision-making configurations of conditions associated with decision outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. Two specialized librarians searched five bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI). The search strategy was conducted from inception to December 2017. A team of twenty crowd-reviewers selected empirical studies on: (1) patients with complex care needs; (2) decisional needs; (3) primary care. Two reviewers appraised the quality of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We conducted a 2-phase case-based qualitative synthesis framed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and Gregor’s explicative-predictive theory type. A decisional need case involved: (a) a decision (what), (b) concerning a patient with complex care needs with bio-psycho-social characteristics (who), (c) made independently or in partnership (how), (d) in a specific place and time (where/when), (e) with communication and coordination barriers or facilitators (why), and that (f) influenced actions taken, health or well-being, or decision quality (outcomes). Results: We included 47 studies. Data sufficiency qualitative criterion was reached. We identified 69 cases (2997 participants across 13 countries) grouped into five types of decisional needs: ‘prioritization’ (n = 26), ‘use of services’ (n = 22), ‘prescription’ (n = 12), ‘behavior change’ (n = 4) and ‘institutionalization’ (n = 5). Many decisions were made between clinical encounters in situations of social vulnerability. Patterns of conditions associated with decision outcomes revealed four decision-making configurations: ‘well-managed’ (n = 13), ‘asymmetric encounters’ (n = 21), ‘self-management by default’ (n = 8), and ‘chaotic’ (n = 27). Shared decision-making was associated with positive outcomes. Negative outcomes were associated with independent decision-making. Conclusion: Our results could extend decision-making models in primary care settings and inform subsequent user-centered design of decision support tools for heterogenous patients with complex care needs.

KW - Decisional needs

KW - Interprofessional coordination

KW - Multimorbidity

KW - Patient-practitioner communication

KW - Patients with complex care needs

KW - Polypharmacy

KW - Primary care

KW - Shared decision-making

KW - Vulnerable population

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141497906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85141497906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5

DO - 10.1186/s12875-022-01879-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 36352376

AN - SCOPUS:85141497906

SN - 1471-2296

VL - 23

JO - BMC Primary Care

JF - BMC Primary Care

IS - 1

M1 - 279

ER -

Decision-making and related outcomes of patients with complex care needs in primary care settings: a systematic literature review with a case-based qualitative synthesis

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this