How older patients prioritise their multiple health problems: a qualitative study.


Journal

BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 12 2019
Historique:
received: 20 05 2019
accepted: 29 11 2019
entrez: 23 12 2019
pubmed: 23 12 2019
medline: 21 7 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Patients with multimorbidity often receive diverse treatments; they are subjected to polypharmacy and to a high treatment burden. Hence it is advocated that doctors set individual health and treatment priorities with their patients. In order to apply such a concept, doctors will need a good understanding of what causes patients to prioritise some of their problems over others. This qualitative study explores what underlying reasons patients have when they appraise their health problems as more or less important. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 34 patients (aged 70 years and over) in German general practices. Initially, patients received a comprehensive geriatric assessment, on the basis of which they rated the importance of their uncovered health problems. Subsequently, they were interviewed as to why they considered some of their problems important and others not. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Patients considered their health problems important, if they were severe, constant, uncontrolled, risky or if they restricted daily activities, autonomy and social inclusion. Important problems often correlated with negative feelings. Patients considered problems unimportant, if they were related to a bearable degree of suffering, less restrictions in activities, or psychological adjustment to diseases. Altogether different reasons occurred on the subject of preventive health issues. Patients assess health problems as important if they interfere with what they want from life (life values and goals). Psychological adjustment, by contrast, facilitates a downgrading of the importance. Asking patients with multimorbidity, which health problems are important, may guide physicians to treatment priorities and health problems in need of empowerment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Patients with multimorbidity often receive diverse treatments; they are subjected to polypharmacy and to a high treatment burden. Hence it is advocated that doctors set individual health and treatment priorities with their patients. In order to apply such a concept, doctors will need a good understanding of what causes patients to prioritise some of their problems over others. This qualitative study explores what underlying reasons patients have when they appraise their health problems as more or less important.
METHODS
We undertook semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 34 patients (aged 70 years and over) in German general practices. Initially, patients received a comprehensive geriatric assessment, on the basis of which they rated the importance of their uncovered health problems. Subsequently, they were interviewed as to why they considered some of their problems important and others not. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative content analysis.
RESULTS
Patients considered their health problems important, if they were severe, constant, uncontrolled, risky or if they restricted daily activities, autonomy and social inclusion. Important problems often correlated with negative feelings. Patients considered problems unimportant, if they were related to a bearable degree of suffering, less restrictions in activities, or psychological adjustment to diseases. Altogether different reasons occurred on the subject of preventive health issues.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients assess health problems as important if they interfere with what they want from life (life values and goals). Psychological adjustment, by contrast, facilitates a downgrading of the importance. Asking patients with multimorbidity, which health problems are important, may guide physicians to treatment priorities and health problems in need of empowerment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31864309
doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1373-y
pii: 10.1186/s12877-019-1373-y
pmc: PMC6925512
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

362

Références

Am J Med. 2004 Feb 1;116(3):179-85
pubmed: 14749162
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011 Aug;59(8):1552-4
pubmed: 21848824
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Dec 20;155(12):797-804
pubmed: 22184686
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012 Oct;60(10):1957-68
pubmed: 22994844
Can J Aging. 2013 Dec;32(4):349-59
pubmed: 24063550
BMJ. 2011 Jul 26;343:d4163
pubmed: 21791490
JAMA. 2012 Jun 20;307(23):2493-4
pubmed: 22797447
Age Ageing. 2017 Mar 1;46(2):291-299
pubmed: 27836856
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Oct;56(10):1839-44
pubmed: 18771453
J Gerontol Soc Work. 2014;57(8):810-24
pubmed: 24873974
Health Expect. 2018 Aug;21(4):787-795
pubmed: 29478260
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2010 Oct;43(5):303-9
pubmed: 20821333
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 Nov 26;13:114
pubmed: 23181453
Healthc (Amst). 2013 Dec;1(3-4):117-122
pubmed: 24944911
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009 Feb;20(1):134-51
pubmed: 19202253
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Nov;64(11):e143-e148
pubmed: 27612181
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Dec;32(12):1278-1284
pubmed: 28849368
BMC Fam Pract. 2015 Jun 02;16:68
pubmed: 26032949
Clin Geriatr Med. 2016 May;32(2):261-75
pubmed: 27113145
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Aug;56(8):1409-16
pubmed: 18662210
BMC Fam Pract. 2012 May 29;13:45
pubmed: 22639848
Lancet. 2008 Jul 19;372(9634):246-55
pubmed: 18640461
Chronic Illn. 2011 Jun;7(2):147-61
pubmed: 21343220
BMJ. 2016 Sep 21;354:i4843
pubmed: 27655884
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Jul 31;17(1):167
pubmed: 28760149
SAGE Open Med. 2013 Sep 20;1:2050312113503955
pubmed: 26770680
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013 Jul;14(7):479-84
pubmed: 23415841
Psychol Health. 2012;27(10):1211-26
pubmed: 22390140
BMC Public Health. 2015 May 16;15:493
pubmed: 25981624
Int J Nurs Stud. 2015 Mar;52(3):744-55
pubmed: 25468131
Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:565-92
pubmed: 16930096
Health Policy. 2018 Jan;122(1):4-11
pubmed: 28967492
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Mar;64(3):625-31
pubmed: 27000335
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 1;366(9):777-9
pubmed: 22375966

Auteurs

Ulrike Junius-Walker (U)

Institute of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Junius-walker.ulrike@mh-hannover.de.

Tanja Schleef (T)

Institute of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Ulrike Vogelsang (U)

Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Marie-Luise Dierks (ML)

Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH