Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care: Participants' evaluation of the intervention
Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in… probably leads to higher patient evaluation of care/the intervention Care related to patient… compared with usual care (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making about their health care vs usual care Patient evaluation of care/the intervention Care related to patient priorities at 15 months after baseline (single question adapted from the NHS General Practice Patient Survey (Ipsos MORI 2015); 5‐point scale dichotomised by patient reports of di... · older patients with multi‐morbidity Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in… probably leads to higher patient evaluation of care/the intervention Care related to patient… compared with usual care (moderate certainty). Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making during primary care… (2019) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.85 [1.44, 2.38] | 1 study · 1211 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for involving older patients with multi‐morbidity in decision‐making during primary care consultations 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.