TY - JOUR
T1 - A scoping review of person and family engagement in the context of multiple chronic conditions
AU - Vick, Judith B.
AU - Wolff, Jennifer L.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was developed in conjunction with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and was presented in part at the 2020 AHRQ Research Summit on Transforming Care for People Living with Multiple Chronic Conditions on November 17 and 18, 2020. We wish to thank Jaime Blanck, M.L.I.S., M.P.A., for her assistance with developing our search strategy and Jen Aufill, B.A., for her insightful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Health Research and Educational
PY - 2021/10
Y1 - 2021/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - caregivers
KW - choice behavior
KW - delivery of health care
KW - multiple chronic conditions
KW - patient participation
KW - review
KW - self-management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114331556&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114331556&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1475-6773.13857
DO - 10.1111/1475-6773.13857
M3 - Article
C2 - 34363217
AN - SCOPUS:85114331556
SN - 0017-9124
VL - 56
SP - 990
EP - 1005
JO - Health services research
JF - Health services research
IS - S1
ER -