Cited by 236Chronic Disease Management StrategiesPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Primary Care Clinicians' Experiences With Treatment Decision Making for Older Persons With Multiple Conditions

Open access
Fried, Terri R., Tinetti, Mary E., Iannone, Lynne·2010·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinicians are caring for an increasing number of older patients with multiple diseases in the face of uncertainty concerning the benefits and harms associated with guideline-directed interventions. Understanding how primary care clinicians approach treatment decision making for these patients is critical to the design of interventions to improve the decision-making process. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 40 primary care clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in academic, community, and Veterans Affairs-affiliated primary care practices. Participants were given open-ended questions about their approach to treatment decision making for older persons with multiple medical conditions. Responses were organized into themes using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The participants were concerned about their patients' ability to adhere to complex regimens derived from guideline-directed care. There was variability in beliefs regarding, and approaches to balancing, the benefits and harms of guideline-directed care. There was also variability regarding how the participants involved patients in the process of decision making, with clinicians describing conflicts between their own and their patients' goals. The participants listed a number of barriers to making good treatment decisions, including the lack of outcome data, the role of specialists, patient and family expectations, and insufficient time and reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of practicing clinicians suggest that they struggle with the uncertainties of applying disease-specific guidelines to their older patients with multiple conditions. To improve decision making, they need more data, alternative guidelines, approaches to reconciling their own and their patients' priorities, the support of their subspecialist colleagues, and an altered reimbursement system.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.318

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Clinicians struggle with the uncertainties of applying disease-specific guidelines to patients with multiple conditions and would benefit from tools to assist decision making for this population.

    “Fried et al. showed that clinicians struggle with the uncertainties of applying disease-specific guidelines to their patients with multiple conditions, and would therefore benefit from a number of tools to assist them in decision making for this population [12].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Rosenfeld KE Wenger NS Kagawa-Singer M End-of-life decision making: a qualitative study of elderly individuals J Gen Intern Med 2000 15 9 620 5 11029675 PMC1495587

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fried, T. R., Tinetti, M. E., & Iannone, L.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2010-09-13
Volume
171
Issue
1
Pages
75-80
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012018261
Cited by
236
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 24
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale University (P30AG21342)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (K24AG028443, P30 AG21342, P30AG021342)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
treatment decision-making, older adults, multimorbidity, primary care providers, guideline-directed care, medication adherence, benefits and harms, shared decision-making, barriers to decision-making, reimbursement, clinician beliefs
MeSH terms
Workforce, Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Connecticut, Decision Making, Female, Goals, Hospitals, University, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Practitioners, Patient Compliance, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physician Assistants, Primary Health Care, Residence Characteristics, United States, Comorbidity, Focus Groups, Narration, Qualitative Research, Medication Adherence, Physicians, Primary Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review