MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410883200 · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2025.109194

Considerations of older adults with multimorbidity when facing healthcare choices: A qualitative systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410883200 on OpenAlexaff
Thessa W. Thölking, Dominique Girard, Yvonne Engels, Yvonne Schoon, Els van Wijngaarden

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Education and Counseling · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumRadboud Universiteit
KeywordsMultimorbidityHealth careMEDLINEQualitative researchMedicinePsychologyNursingFamily medicineChronic diseaseSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: healthcare decision-making of older adults with multimorbidity is challenging and patient preferences regarding healthcare choices have been insufficiently studied. We aimed to explore what considerations older adults with multimorbidity take into account when facing choices in a healthcare context and what meaning these choices hold for them. METHODS: systematic review of literature from four databases up until November 2024 using a thematic synthesis of qualitative research (PROSPERO CRD42023477681). Peer-reviewed, empirical studies reporting on the considerations regarding healthcare choices of older people (aged ≥ 75) with multimorbidity in English were included. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research was used to appraise included studies. RESULTS: 20 articles relating to 19 studies with a total of 225 participants were included. Studies were mainly based on interviews (n = 12) or combined observational and interview data (n = 7) and reported on multiple types of healthcare choices. The synthesis showed a variety of patient considerations regarding engagement with decision-making delineating a spectrum of engagement and a diversity of drivers for healthcare choices. Contextual factors such as complexity, power dynamics, information provision, and relationships shaped patients' considerations. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The synthesis showed that considerations of older people with multimorbidity are diverse and considerably shaped by patient and decision context. Therefore, this context should be considered in decision-making, with specific attention to vulnerability to power dynamics, and room should be provided to attune decision-making to individual patient considerations. Interventions to improve integration of patient considerations in decision-making and patient engagement should not only focus on patients, but also target healthcare professionals and systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Education and CounselingSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207