A scoping review of person and family engagement in the context of multiple chronic conditions. (4th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Vick, Judith B.; Wolff, Jennifer L.
• Other Names: Bierman Arlene S. guestEditor.; Werner Rachel M. guestEditor.
• Is Part Of: Health services research. Volume 56:Supplement 1(2021)
• Page Start: 990
• Page End: 1005
• Publication Date: 2021-10-04
• Subjects: caregivers -- choice behavior -- delivery of health care -- multiple chronic conditions -- patient participation -- review -- self‐management; Medical care -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Evaluation -- Periodicals; Hospital care -- Periodicals; Health services administration -- Periodicals; 362
• DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13857
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-9124

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To review definitions, concepts, and evidence regarding person and family engagement for persons with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) in order to identify opportunities to advance the field. Data Source: Ovid MEDLINE. Study Design: We performed a two‐step process as follows: (1) a critical review of conceptual models of engagement to identify key concepts most pertinent to engagement among persons with MCC as a "launch pad" to our scoping review and (2) a scoping review of reviews of engagement for persons living with MCC. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: First, we critically reviewed six models of engagement. Second, our scoping review identified 1297 citations, with 67 articles meeting criteria for inclusion. Of these, we focused on reviews, of which there were nine titles/abstracts retained for full‐text consideration. Six full‐text reviews were included in the final analysis. The purpose, review type, population, number/type of included studies, theoretical framework, and findings of each study were extracted and analyzed thematically. Principal Findings: Conceptual models of engagement differ with respect to areas of emphasis (e.g., systems or clinical encounters) as well as attention to vulnerable populations, involvement of family, consideration of cost–benefit trade‐offs, and attention to outcomes that matter most. Our scoping review of reviews identified just one article explicitly focused on engagement interventions for those with MCC. Other reviews examined elements of self‐management and involvement in decision making, conceptually related to engagement without explicit use of the word. We find that existing evidence has predominantly described individual‐level strategies rather than targeting organizations, systems, or policies. Barriers to engagement are not well described nor are potential downsides to engagement. Family engagement is rarely considered. Conclusions: Promising areas of future work include attention to barriers to engagement including trust, goal‐based care, the design of structural changes to care delivery, trade‐offs between benefits and costs, and family engagement.