Evaluation of a technology-enhanced integrated care model for frail older persons: protocol of the SPEC study, a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial in nursing homes

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities

BACKGROUND

The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents.

OBJECTIVES

Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Evaluation of a technology-enhanced, integrated community health and wellness program for seniors (HWePS): protocol of a non-randomized comparison trial

BACKGROUND

Healthy aging for all in the community is a shared public health agenda for countries with aging populations, but there is a lack of empirical evidence on community-wide preventive models that promote the health of older people residing in socially-disadvantaged communities. The Health and Wellness Program for Seniors (HWePS) is a technology-enhanced, multi-level, integrated health equity intervention model. This study evaluates the effect of the HWePS on the health and well-being of older adults residing in urban, low-income communities.  METHODS/DESIGN: HWePS is a prospective, non-randomized comparison trial conducted in an intervention and a control neighborhood (dong) in Seoul, South Korea, over 12 months. Older people who reside in the small areas and meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria are eligible to participate. The multi-level, multi-faceted HWePS intervention is a preventive community care model for older residents guided by the expanded chronic care model, the comprehensive health literacy intervention model, and the Systems for Person-centered Elder Care model along with health equity frameworks. HWePS consists of four components: a health literacy intervention based on individual and community needs assessments, personalized (self-)care management featuring nurse coaching and peer support, a healthy-living and healthy-aging community initiative, and information and communication technology (ICT) systems. The primary outcomes are self-reported health and health-related quality of life. Outcome assessors and data analysts are blinded to group assignment. Process evaluation will be also conducted.

DISCUSSION

As a multi-level health equity project, HWePS has adopted a novel study design that simultaneously targets individual- and community-level factors known to contribute to health inequality in later life in the community. The study will provide insights into the effectiveness and implementation process of an integrated, multi-level, preventive community care model, which in turn can help improve the health outcomes of older residents and reduce disparities in underserved urban communities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN29103760. Registered 2 September 2021, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN29103760.

Core elements and potential of nurse-led care models in residential long-term care: A scoping review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarise core elements, resident-, staff- and process-related outcomes and challenges of nurse-led care models in residential long-term care.

BACKGROUND

Due to demographic trends, the complexity of residential long-term care has increased. To address this complexity, the implementation of nurse-led care models has been recommended.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of English and German articles in CINAHL via EBSCO, MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus. Forward and backward citation tracking via reference lists and Google Scholar supplemented the search. The final update was made on 19 January 2021. To draw conclusions about the potential of nurse-led care models, evaluation studies of the described models for residents in nursing homes were included. Full texts were independently screened and assessed for methodological quality. Data were extracted and summarised in tables and synthesised for analysis. The core elements of the models were described using the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multimorbidity: delivery, FInancing and performancE (SELFIE) framework. The review followed the PRISMA-ScR guideline.

RESULTS

We included 13 studies of 12 nurse-led care models. The different models comprised many of the core elements suggested in the SELFIE framework, particularly in the components service delivery, workforce, and leadership and governance. The studies reported a broad range of resident-, staff- and process-related outcomes and challenges considered relevant to the success of the models.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies evaluating nurse-led care models in nursing homes are limited and of moderate quality. This review demonstrates that nurse-led care models include many elements for care coordination and could improve resident-, staff- and process-related outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review highlights that nurse-led care models share common core elements despite their heterogeneity. It also shows that highly qualified nurses in nurse-led care models can advance nursing practice in nursing homes.

Spread and scale of an electronic deprescribing software to improve health outcomes of older adults living in nursing homes: study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Medication overload or problematic polypharmacy is a major problem causing widespread harm, particularly to older adults. Taking multiple medications increases the risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and residents in long-term care (LTC) are frequently prescribed 10 or more medications at once. One strategy to address this problem is for the physician and/or pharmacist to perform regular medication reviews; however, this process can be complicated and time-consuming. With a prescription review, medications may be decreased, changed, or stopped altogether. MedReviewRx is a software that runs an analysis using deprescribing rules to produce a report to guide medication reviews addressing medication overload for residents in LTC.

METHODS

This study will employ a mixed methods effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study design. To measure effectiveness, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design is planned, which allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. Approximately 1000 residents living in LTC will be recruited from five facilities in New Brunswick. The study will begin with 3 months of baseline data on rates of deprescribing. Thereafter, every 3 months a new cluster will enter the intervention mode. The intervention consists of medication reviews augmented with the MedReviewRx software, which will be used by staff and clinicians in the facilities. The estimated study duration is 18 months and the main outcome will be the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed (reduced/stopped or changed to a safer alternative) in the 90 days following a prescription review. The goal is to study the impact of MedReviewRx on medication overload among older adults living in LTC. In typical fashion of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, each cluster acts as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). Qualitative data collected will include resident/caregiver attitudes towards deprescribing and semi-structured interviews with staff working in the long-term care homes.

DISCUSSION

This study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. This study will provide valuable information on PIM use, cost savings, and facilitators and challenges associated with medication reviews and deprescribing. This study represents an important step towards understanding and promoting tools to guide safe and rational reduction of PIM use among older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04762303 , Registered February 21, 2021.

Implementation fidelity of the Systems for Person-Centered Elder Care (SPEC): a process evaluation study

BACKGROUND

The Systems for Person-Centered Elder Care (SPEC), a complex intervention, was conducted to examine its effectiveness as a technology-enhanced, multidisciplinary, and integrated care model for frail older persons among ten nursing homes (NHs) in South Korea where formal long-term care has recently been introduced. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation fidelity of the SPEC intervention and to identify moderating factors that influence the implementation fidelity.

METHODS

This study was a process evaluation based on an evidence-based framework for implementation fidelity using a mixed-methods design. Quantitative data from consultant logbooks, NH documentations, an information and communications technology (ICT) system, and a standardized questionnaire were collected from April 2015 to December 2016 and analyzed by calculating the descriptive statistics. Semi-structured focus group interviews were held with multidisciplinary teams from the participating NHs. Qualitative data from a semi-structured questionnaire and the focus group interviews were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

The SPEC program demonstrated good implementation fidelity, and adherence to the SPEC program was strong in all aspects, such as content, coverage, frequency, and duration. Of the participating on-site coordinators, 60% reported that the SPEC model positively impacted needs assessment and the reporting system for resident care. The important facilitating factors were tailored facilitating strategies, assurance of the quality of delivery, and recruitment strategies.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of the SPEC program was driven by good implementation fidelity. The key factors of good implementation fidelity were tailored delivery of evidence-based interventions over process evaluation work, facilitating strategies, and ICT support. Larger implementation studies with a more user-friendly ICT system are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11972147 . Registered on 16 March 2015.

Effectiveness of a Technology-Enhanced Integrated Care Model for Frail Older People: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial in Nursing Homes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an information and communication technologies (ICT)-enhanced, multidisciplinary integrated care model, called Systems for Person-centered Elder Care (SPEC), on frail older adults at nursing homes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

SPEC was implemented at 10 nursing homes in South Korea in random order using a stepped-wedge design. Data were collected on all participating older residents in the homes before the first implementation and until 6 months after the last implementation. The 21-month SPEC intervention guided by the chronic care model (CCM) consists of 5 strategies: comprehensive geriatric assessment, care planning, optional interdisciplinary case conferences, care coordination, and a cloud-based ICT tool along with a free messaging app. The primary outcome was quality of care measured by a composite quality indicator (QI) from the interRAI assessment system. Usual care continued over the control periods. Nursing home staff were not blinded to the intervention.

RESULTS

There were a total of 482 older nursing home residents included in the analysis. Overall quality of care measured by the composite QI was significantly improved (adjusted mean difference: -0.025 [95% CI: -0.037 to -0.014, p < .0001]). The intervention effect was consistent in the subgroup analysis by cognition and activities of daily living. There were no important adverse events or side effects.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The SPEC, a CCM-guided, ICT-supported, multidisciplinary integrated care management intervention, can improve the quality of care measured by health and functional outcomes for frail older persons residing in nursing homes with limited health care provision.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11972147.

World Health Organization Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) and the Integrated Care of Older Patients with Frailty in Primary Care (ICOOP_Frail) Study in Korea

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently endorsed the proposal for a Decade of Healthy Ageing (2020–2030). The WHO defines “healthy aging” as “the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age.” Among the strategies for the Decade of Healthy Ageing, the WHO has suggested enhancing intrinsic capacity, promoting functional ability, and implementing the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) package. The WHO has defined steps for ICOPE evaluation and scale-up and is performing a prospective study in 2–3 countries (low and middle income, high income) to test its feasibility in 2021–2022 and a multinational randomized study to validate its clinical efficacy and effectiveness in 2022–2024. Intrinsic capacity and frailty represent two faces of the same coin, with one indicating the reserves of the individual and the other indicating the deficits that accumulate with age. The Integrated Care of Older Patients with Frailty in Primary Care (ICOOP_Frail) study is the first integrated care program for frailty or functional decline in primary care in Korea. The results suggest that the ICOOP_Frail study can be utilized as a reference for ICOPE studies in Korea or at least to provide important findings for the forthcoming ICOPE implementation study in Korea.

Health Economic Evaluation Alongside Stepped Wedge Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been an increase in use of the stepped wedge trial (SWT) design in the context of health services research, due to its pragmatic and methodological advantages over the parallel group design.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to summarise the statistical methods used when conducting economic evaluations alongside SWTs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search extending to February 2020 was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) databases to find and evaluate studies where there was an intention to conduct an economic evaluation alongside an SWT. Studies were assessed for their eligibility, findings, reporting of statistical methods and quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Of the 586 studies retrieved from the literature search, 69 studies were identified and included in this systematic review. A total of 54 studies were published protocols, with eight economic evaluations and seven studies reporting full trial results. Included studies varied in terms of their reporting of statistical methods, in both detail and methodology. There were 34 studies that did not report any statistical methods for the economic evaluation, and only 16 studies reported appropriate methods, mainly using some form of mixed/multilevel model, and two used seemingly unrelated regression. Twelve studies reported the use of generic bootstrap methods and other modelling techniques, whilst the remaining studies failed to appropriately account for clustering, correlation or adjustment for time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of appropriate statistical methods that account for time, clustering and correlation between costs and outcomes is an important part of SWT health economics analysis, one that will benefit from an effort to communicate the methods available and their performance.

Validation of an integrated service model, Health-RESPECT, for older patients in long-term care institution using information and communication technologies: protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

There is an increased healthcare need to manage institutionalised older patients owing to the ageing population. To overcome substantial future challenges, the Health-RESPECT (caRE Systems for Patients/Elderly with Coordinated care using icT), a new information and communication technologies based integrated management service model, was developed to provide effective management, enable consultation with distant professionals and share medical information between acute care hospitals and long-term care institutions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to examine the effectiveness of the Health-RESPECT in older patients with chronic diseases and their medical staff in charge. Intervention involves registration with simple comprehensive geriatric assessment, establishment of an individualised care plan for three chronic diseases (hypertension, diabetes and heart failure), medication and rehabilitation management, periodic video-conference and in-system assessment after intervention period. Primary outcomes are control levels of the three chronic diseases, adequacy of drug management and overall functional status. Patients will be assessed at before and after study period and 3 months after study ended. Analysis will be carried out with an intention-to-treat principle. In addition to evaluate intervention effects, clinical usability and economic evaluation will be assessed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Institutional Review Board. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0004360.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve participation in older people with joint contractures living in nursing homes: a process evaluation of a cluster-randomised pilot trial

Background

Joint contractures in frail older people are associated with serious restrictions in participation. We developed the Participation Enabling CAre in Nursing (PECAN) intervention, a complex intervention to enable nurses to promote participation in nursing home residents with joint contractures. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of the implementation strategy and to identify enablers and barriers for a successful implementation.

Methods

The implementation of PECAN was investigated in a 6-month pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (c-RCT). As a key component of the implementation strategy, nominated nurses were trained as facilitators in a one-day workshop and supported by peer-mentoring (visit, telephone counselling). A mixed-methods approach was conducted in conjunction with the pilot trial and guided by a framework for process evaluations of c-RCTs. Data were collected using standardised questionnaires (nursing staff), documentation forms, problem-centred qualitative interviews (facilitators, therapists, social workers, relatives, peer-mentors), and a group discussion (facilitators). A set of predefined criteria on the nursing home level was examined. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis.

Results

Seven nursing homes (n = 4 intervention groups, n = 3 control groups) in two regions of Germany took part in the study. Facilitators responded well to the qualification measures (workshop participation: 14/14; workshop rating: “good”; peer-mentor visit participation: 10/14). The usage of peer-mentoring via telephone varied (one to seven contacts per nursing home). Our implementation strategy was not successful in connection with supplying the intervention to all the nurses. The clear commitment of the entire nursing home and the respect for the expertise of different healthcare professionals were emphasised as enablers, whereas a lack of impact on organisational conditions and routines and a lack of time and staff competence were mentioned as barriers.

Conclusion

The PECAN intervention was delivered as planned to the facilitators but was unable to produce comprehensive changes in the nursing homes and subsequently for the residents. Strategies to systematically include the management and the nursing team from the beginning are needed to support the facilitators during implementation in the main trial.

Trial registration

German clinical trials register, DRKS00010037. Registered 12 February 2016.

Interventions for involving older patients with multi-morbidity in decision-making during primary care consultations

BACKGROUND

Older patients with multiple health problems (multi-morbidity) value being involved in decision-making about their health care. However, they are less frequently involved than younger patients. To maximise quality of life, day-to-day function, and patient safety, older patients require support to identify unmet healthcare needs and to prioritise treatment options.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for older patients with multi-morbidity aiming to involve them in decision-making about their health care during primary care consultations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; all years to August 2018), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to August 2018); Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to August 2018); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to August 2018); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (Ovid) (1982 to September 2008), then in Ebsco (2009 to August 2018); Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Databases (Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE)) (all years to August 2018); the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (all years to August 2018); the Ongoing Reviews Database (all years to August 2018); and Dissertation Abstracts International (1861 to August 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, and quasi-RCTs of interventions to involve patients in decision-making about their health care versus usual care/control/another intervention, for patients aged 65 years and older with multi-morbidity in primary care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Meta-analysis was not possible; therefore we prepared a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 1879 participants: two RCTs and one cluster-RCT. Interventions consisted of: · patient workshop and individual coaching using behaviour change techniques; · individual patient coaching utilising cognitive-behavioural therapy and motivational interviewing; and · holistic patient review, multi-disciplinary practitioner training, and organisational change. No studies reported the primary outcome 'patient involvement in decision-making' or the primary adverse outcome 'less patient involvement as a result of the intervention'. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and individual coaching, holistic patient review plus practitioner training, and organisational change) to usual care: we are uncertain whether interventions had any effect on patient reports of high self-rated health (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 5.49; very low-certainty evidence) or on patient enablement (mean difference (MD) 0.60, 95% CI -9.23 to 10.43; very low-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Interventions probably had no effect on health-related quality of life (adjusted difference in means 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; moderate-certainty evidence) or on medication adherence (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.17; moderate-certainty evidence) but probably improved the number of patients discussing their priorities (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.38; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably increased the number of nurse consultations (incident rate ratio from adjusted multi-level Poisson model 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.61; moderate-certainty evidence) compared with usual care. Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect rates of participant death or anxiety, emergency department attendance, or hospital admission compared with usual care. Comparing interventions (patient workshop and coaching, individual patient coaching) to attention-control conditions: we are uncertain whether interventions affect patient-reported high self-rated health (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.00, favouring attention control, with very low-certainty evidence; RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.52, favouring the intervention, with very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether interventions affect patient enablement and engagement by increasing either patient activation (MD 1.20, 95% CI -8.21 to 10.61; very low-certainty evidence) or self-efficacy (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.79; very low-certainty evidence); or whether interventions affect the number of general practice visits (MD 0.51, 95% CI -0.34 to 1.36; very low-certainty evidence), compared to attention-control conditions. The intervention may however lead to more patient-reported changes in management of their health conditions (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.44; low-certainty evidence). Practitioner outcomes were not measured. Interventions were not reported to adversely affect emergency department attendance nor hospital admission when compared with attention control. Comparing one form of intervention with another: not measured. There was 'unclear' risk across studies for performance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias; however, no aspects were 'high' risk. Evidence was downgraded via GRADE, most often because of 'small sample size' and 'evidence from a single study'.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Limited available evidence does not allow a robust conclusion regarding the objectives of this review. Whilst patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a key mechanism for improving care, it is rarely examined as an intervention and was not measured by included studies. Consistency in design, analysis, and evaluation of interventions would enable a greater likelihood of robust conclusions in future reviews.