Cited by 72Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareNursing care and research

A Synthesis Of Knowledge About Caregiver Decision Making Finds Gaps In Support For Those Who Care For Aging Loved Ones

Open access
Garvelink, Mirjam M., Ngangue, Patrice A. G., Adekpedjou, Rheda, Diouf, Ndeye T., Goh, Larissa, Blair, Louisa, Légaré, France·2016·Health Affairs

Abstract

We conducted a mixed-methods knowledge synthesis to assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve caregivers' involvement in decision making with seniors, and to describe caregivers' experiences of decision making in the absence of interventions. We analyzed forty-nine qualitative, fourteen quantitative, and three mixed-methods studies. The qualitative studies indicated that caregivers had unmet needs for information, discussions of values and needs, and decision support, which led to negative sentiments after decision making. Our results indicate that there have been insufficient quantitative evaluations of interventions to involve caregivers in decision making with seniors and that the evaluations that do exist found few clinically significant effects. Elements of usual care that received positive evaluations were the availability of a decision coach and a supportive decision-making environment. Additional rigorously evaluated interventions are needed to help caregivers be more involved in decision making with seniors.

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 · 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1375

Cites

28 of 28 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?

  • Caregivers have hitherto been largely ignored in research about elderly people.

    “and yet have hitherto been largely ignored in research about elderly people [24]”

    From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Discussion (page not provided) identifies a gap in research on caregivers’ involvement in specific decisions for seniors: only four of the 66 studies reviewed evaluated interventions. That supports a narrower concern about research on caregiver decision-making, but not the broader claim that caregivers have been largely ignored in research about elderly people generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Caregivers experience the most decisional conflict during the decision-making process.

    “they are the ones who experience the most decisional conflict during the decision-making process [23, 24]”

    From Development of a decision guide to support the elderly in decision making about location of care: an iterative, user-centered design (2016) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Feasibility of the Decision section reports conflicts caregivers faced between preferred and actual decisions, and Outcomes of Decision Making reports doubt and uncertainty. Neither section establishes that caregivers experience more decisional conflict than anyone else; the claim’s “most” comparison is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Health Care (Consent) and Care Fa- cility (Admission) Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, chapter 181 (1996).
  2. Health Care Consent Act, Statutes of Ontario, chapter 2, schedule A (1996).
  3. Osborne-Stafsnes JM. Shared deci- sion making: using federal health policy as a lever to support imple- mentation. J Particip Med. 2013; 5:e19. 8 Special issue: new era of patient engagement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2).
  4. Towle A, Godolphin W. Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ. 1999; 319(7212):766-71.
  5. Walker E, Dewar BJ. How do we fa- cilitate carers' involvement in deci- sion making? J Adv Nurs. 2001; 34(3):329-37.
  6. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed re- search synthesis studies. Res Sch. 2006;13(1):29.
  7. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. De- veloping a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online in- ternational Delphi consensus proc- ess. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.
  8. Jeffers BR. Research for practice. The surrogate's experience during treatment decision-making. Med- surg Nurs. 1998;7(6):357-63.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garvelink, M. M., Ngangue, P. A. G., Adekpedjou, R., Diouf, N. T., Goh, L., Blair, L., & Légaré, F.
Affiliations
  • CHU de Québec-Université Laval (CA)
  • Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (CA)
  • Rheda Adekpedjou is a PhD candidate in epidemiology in the Population Health and Practice-Changing Research Group of the Research Centre, CHU de Québec.
  • Ndeye T. Diouf is a PhD candidate in community health in the Population Health and Practice-Changing Research Group of the Research Centre, CHU de Québec.
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Université Laval (CA)
Venue
Health Affairs
Published
2016-04
Volume
35
Issue
4
Pages
619-626
ISSN
  • 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-5208
OpenAlex
W2340607288
Cited by
72
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (140842_1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
caregiver decision-making, family caregivers, older adults, shared decision-making, caregiver involvement, decision support, caregiver needs, intervention effectiveness, usual care, end-of-life care
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Canada, Decision Making, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Patient Participation, United States, Geriatric Assessment, Caregivers, Needs Assessment, Qualitative Research

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