Judith B Vick1,2, Jennifer L Wolff1,2. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review definitions, concepts, and evidence regarding person and family engagement for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) in order to identify opportunities to advance the field. DATA SOURCE: Ovid MEDLINE. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a two-step process as follows: (1) a critical review of conceptual models of engagement to identify key concepts most pertinent to engagement among persons with MCC as a "launch pad" to our scoping review and (2) a scoping review of reviews of engagement for persons living with MCC. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: First, we critically reviewed six models of engagement. Second, our scoping review identified 1297 citations, with 67 articles meeting criteria for inclusion. Of these, we focused on reviews, of which there were nine titles/abstracts retained for full-text consideration. Six full-text reviews were included in the final analysis. The purpose, review type, population, number/type of included studies, theoretical framework, and findings of each study were extracted and analyzed thematically. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Conceptual models of engagement differ with respect to areas of emphasis (e.g., systems or clinical encounters) as well as attention to vulnerable populations, involvement of family, consideration of cost-benefit trade-offs, and attention to outcomes that matter most. Our scoping review of reviews identified just one article explicitly focused on engagement interventions for those with MCC. Other reviews examined elements of self-management and involvement in decision making, conceptually related to engagement without explicit use of the word. We find that existing evidence has predominantly described individual-level strategies rather than targeting organizations, systems, or policies. Barriers to engagement are not well described nor are potential downsides to engagement. Family engagement is rarely considered. CONCLUSIONS: Promising areas of future work include attention to barriers to engagement including trust, goal-based care, the design of structural changes to care delivery, trade-offs between benefits and costs, and family engagement.
OBJECTIVE: To review definitions, concepts, and evidence regarding person and family engagement for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) in order to identify opportunities to advance the field. DATA SOURCE: Ovid MEDLINE. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a two-step process as follows: (1) a critical review of conceptual models of engagement to identify key concepts most pertinent to engagement among persons with MCC as a "launch pad" to our scoping review and (2) a scoping review of reviews of engagement for persons living with MCC. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: First, we critically reviewed six models of engagement. Second, our scoping review identified 1297 citations, with 67 articles meeting criteria for inclusion. Of these, we focused on reviews, of which there were nine titles/abstracts retained for full-text consideration. Six full-text reviews were included in the final analysis. The purpose, review type, population, number/type of included studies, theoretical framework, and findings of each study were extracted and analyzed thematically. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Conceptual models of engagement differ with respect to areas of emphasis (e.g., systems or clinical encounters) as well as attention to vulnerable populations, involvement of family, consideration of cost-benefit trade-offs, and attention to outcomes that matter most. Our scoping review of reviews identified just one article explicitly focused on engagement interventions for those with MCC. Other reviews examined elements of self-management and involvement in decision making, conceptually related to engagement without explicit use of the word. We find that existing evidence has predominantly described individual-level strategies rather than targeting organizations, systems, or policies. Barriers to engagement are not well described nor are potential downsides to engagement. Family engagement is rarely considered. CONCLUSIONS: Promising areas of future work include attention to barriers to engagement including trust, goal-based care, the design of structural changes to care delivery, trade-offs between benefits and costs, and family engagement.
Authors: Lisa C Bratzke; Rebecca J Muehrer; Karen A Kehl; Kyoung Suk Lee; Earlise C Ward; Kristine L Kwekkeboom Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Guendalina Graffigna; Serena Barello; Giuseppe Riva; Massimo Corbo; Gianfranco Damiani; Primiano Iannone; Albino Claudio Bosio; Walter Ricciardi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Hazel Heng; Debra Kiegaldie; Susan C Slade; Dana Jazayeri; Louise Shaw; Matthew Knight; Cathy Jones; Anne-Marie Hill; Meg E Morris Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Andrea Phelps; Ellie Lawrence-Wood; Anne-Laure Couineau; Mark Hinton; Paul Dolan; Patrick Smith; MaryAnn Notarianni; David Forbes; Fardous Hosseiny Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-04 Impact factor: 4.614