Skip to main content

Interventions for the empowerment of older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making: short report of a systematic review



Care transitions across different settings necessitate careful decision-making for all parties involved, yet research indicates that older people and informal caregivers do not have a strong voice in such decisions.


To provide a systematic overview of the literature about interventions designed to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making.


A systematic review (Prospero Protocol CRD42020167961; funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 program).

Data sources

Five databases were searched: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL.

Review methods

The review included evaluations of empowerment in decision-making interventions for older people and informal caregivers facing care transitions, that were published from the inception of the databases up until April 2022. Data extractions were performed by two independent researchers and the quality of studies was assessed with the relevant JBI-critical appraisal tools. A narrative descriptive analysis of the results was performed.


Ten studies, reporting on nine interventions, and including a total of 4642 participants, were included. Interventions included transition preparation tools, support from transition coaches, shared decision-making interventions, and advance care planning. Designs and outcomes assessed were highly diverse and showed a mix of positive and lacking effects.


There is a lack of research on how to empower older people and their informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making. Empowerment in decision-making is usually not central in transitional care interventions, and effects on actual empowerment are mostly not assessed. Conclusions on how to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making cannot be drawn.

Peer Review reports


Older people are at risk of low quality of life due to (comorbid) health conditions that can come with advanced age [1, 2]. As a result, care for complex health conditions across care settings, and transitions between these settings are often needed [3]. However, transitional care is often poorly handled [4, 5] and can lead to negative outcomes, low care satisfaction, and care inefficacy [6, 7]. Though older people should be central in such transitions, they report confusion, a lack of control, and the inability to have their say in the care transition decisions [8,9,10]. At the same time, informal caregivers report unsatisfactory communication with the older person they care for, within their families, as well as with health professionals, all leading to hindered transitional care decision-making [8]. A focus on the empowerment of older people and informal caregivers in the transitional care decision-making thus becomes relevant [11, 12].

The World Health Organization defines empowerment as “a process through which people gain greater control over decisions and actions affecting their health” [13]. In line with this definition, alternative empowerment interventions can be considered [14,15,16]. However, an overview of interventions for empowering older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making, and their effects, is not available from the literature.

Thus, we aim to provide a systematic overview of the literature concerning the evaluation of interventions designed to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making, and to explore their impact.


We performed a systematic review (Prospero Protocol CRD42020167961), and report its results in line with the PRISMA [17] guidelines.

Review methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched from the inception of the databases up until April 2022. Concepts for the search strategy were ‘old age’, ‘informal caregivers’, ‘involvement in decision-making’, ‘transitional care’, and ‘home’ as a location for either the start or the end of the transition. The search strategy was developed by all authors and search strings were built, pre-tested, and finalized with the help of a professional information specialist (see supplementary file 1).

During the process of searching and including literature we were in contact with various authors on the topic of transitional care (e.g. to obtain full text or additional info). Potentially relevant publications suggested by these authors were also checked for their relevance.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Publications were included if they met the following criteria: (1) reports of empirical studies; (2) study participants (or at least 70% of them) aged 65+ and/or informal caregivers; (3) study participants facing a care transition departing from or returning to the older person’s home; and (4) reports should evaluate interventions that include empowerment in transitional care decision-making. Studies without empirical data were excluded. Language was not a reason for exclusion.

Study selection

The first author (LK) performed the searches and removed duplicates. The selection process was always performed by two independent researchers per publication, first based on titles and abstracts and then based on full text screening for the remaining articles. In case of disagreements, the researchers tried to reach a consensus or consulted a third researcher where necessary.

Quality assessment

Study quality was double blindly evaluated by two independent reviewers, using the relevant JBI-critical appraisal tools [18].

Data extraction

Data extraction was independently conducted by LK and TvA, and for publication year, country, interventions for empowerment in decision-making, design, sample, outcomes measured, and main results (Table 1). References to details on the study interventions were always checked in the process. Discrepancies in the extractions were discussed and resolved.

Table 1 Study characteristics (n = 10), interventions, outcomes assessed and main results

Analysis and reporting

Given the limited number of studies and the considerable heterogeneity, a narrative descriptive analysis of the studies was performed and a short report was drawn-up.


Of 6476 unique records, full texts of 808 studies were screened. Eight of these were included. Two additional studies were retrieved through contacts with authors on the topic or screening the work of specific authors, resulting in a total of ten studies (total of 4642 participants) reporting on nine interventions (Fig. 1). The studies were three (cluster-) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three non-RCTs, one retrospective comparative study, one before-after study, and two observational studies (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram for the identification, selection, and inclusion of studies

Quality assessment

No studies were excluded based on quality. Overall, studies were of a reasonable quality in the light of the designs used. However, for most studies one or a few study aspects were unclear from the report, or received a negative score. (See supplementary file 2 for details).

The studies

Five out of the nine interventions addressed hospital discharge (Table 1). The other interventions focused on transitions from a short stay unit to outpatient/home care, people’s preferences for potential transfers in case of severely deteriorating health, and future housing decisions (i.e. living at home or in a residential care facility). The two latter studies were the only ones in which empowerment for decision-making was the central intervention. Empowerment was an element in a larger transitional care intervention in all other cases, where healthcare professionals were central in initiating and planning for transitions.

Intervention (elements) for empowerment included tools for considering and preparing for transitions, support from transition coaches, shared decision-making (SDM), and advanced care planning. Outcomes focused on intervention feasibility, use of care services, timeliness of arrangements, utility of the interventions, transition preparedness, and preferred place of death (Table 1).

Interventions and effects

Hospital discharge preparation tools were operationalized as planning manuals and checklists that encourage people to consider all aspects of hospital discharge, necessary arrangements, and their personal discharge readiness. The two studies evaluating such tools as a single intervention showed peoples’ appreciation for the tools with a view to their relevance and utility, but indicated no effects on the quality of discharge [22, 27].

A combined intervention of a discharge preparation tool and support of a transition coach was evaluated in two studies [20, 21]. In these studies, the transition coach offered guidance and continuity of care at several points in the transition process. Results showed reduced use of emergency department services and fewer re-hospitalizations, but not consistently for all comparisons.

Shared decision-making interventions were central in five studies [19, 24,25,26, 28]. Four studies evaluated SDM on transition plans and included identifying problems and solutions, person-centered mutual goals development, and ongoing evaluation and follow-up [24, 25, 28]. Results included shorter hospital stays, fewer discharge delays, improved mental (but not physical) quality of life, and positive views on the older people’s involvement in discharge processes. Feasibility results from one of these studies indicated that coordination processes and actual involvement did not always happen. In one of the studies, inter-professional SDM training and use of a decision guide, were the core intervention elements [19]. This study reported a higher proportion of informal caregivers reporting an active role in the decision-making as compared to control, but not statistically significantly so, and no effects on secondary outcomes were found.

Advance care planning for preferred place of death [23], was a very brief intervention that asked people in palliative care to document their preferred place of death. In this retrospective comparative study, the intervention was associated with dying at home more often (as compared to people with no advanced care planning), and a positive correlation between preferred place of death and actual place of death was found. However, statistics for these results were incomplete in the study report.


Our review identified limited research on interventions for the empowerment of older people and informal caregivers at the time of transitional care decision-making. Shared decision-making, advanced care planning, and (combined) hospital and skilled nursing facilities discharge preparation tools and support from a transition coach have all been used for such empowerment. However, variability in interventions, study designs and outcomes assessed, and inconclusive results do not allow for drawing conclusions on their effectiveness.

Two interventions primarily focused on empowerment in decision-making and assessed relevant outcomes for empowerment [19, 23], while all of other interventions included elements of empowerment in decision-making in a larger multi-component intervention. This was also reflected by some of the primary outcomes for the intervention evaluation (e.g., looking at re-hospitalizations and emergency department visits, rather than person-centered outcomes). Such variability of outcomes assessed for the empowerment of older people was also reported by Shearer et al. [29]. Their review on empowerment of older people in taking health-related decisions, showed that outcomes assessed were highly variable, even when empowerment was conceptualized in the same way [29]. These and other findings illustrate that there is no generally accepted measurement of people’s empowerment [30], even though there is a clear need for a stronger emphasis on person-centered empowerment [14, 29].

This review’s strength lies in its exhaustive literature searches and rigorous inclusion and data extraction processes. However, a major limitation is that we could not synthesize findings, due to the high variability in interventions, designs used and outcomes assessed. Instead, we categorized the interventions into logical groups, and highlighted the different interventions and their outcomes.

In conclusion, this brief report indicates a lack of research on how to empower older people and their informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making. Furthermore, empowerment for decision-making is insufficiently central to transitional care interventions and effects on actual empowerment are mostly not assessed. As a result, conclusions on how best to empower older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making cannot be drawn.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



European Union


Randomized Controlled Trial


Shared Decision-Making


Emergency Department


Not significant


Not reported


Odds ratio


Confidence interval


  1. Fabbri E, Zoli M, Gonzalez-Freire M, Salive ME, Studenski SA, Ferrucci L. Aging and multimorbidity: new tasks, priorities, and Frontiers for integrated Gerontological and clinical research. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2015;16(8):640–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Yarnall AJ, Sayer AA, Clegg A, Rockwood K, Parker S, Hindle JV. New horizons in multimorbidity in older adults. Age Ageing. 2017;46(6):882–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hirschman KB, Shaid E, McCauley K, Pauly MV, Naylor MD. Continuity of care: the transitional care model. Online J Issues Nurs. 2015;20(3):1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Naylor MD, Shaid EC, Carpenter D, Gass B, Levine C, Li J, et al. Components of comprehensive and effective transitional care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(6):1119–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Naylor M, Keating SA. Transitional care. Am J Nurs. 2008;108(9 Suppl):58–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Storm M, Siemsen IM, Laugaland K, Dyrstad DN, Aase K. Quality in transitional care of the elderly: key challenges and relevant improvement measures. Int J Integr Care. 2014;14:e013.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrah N, Ibrahim JE, Kipsaina C, Bugeja L. Death following recent admission into nursing home from community living: a systematic review into the transition process. J Aging Health. 2018;30(4):584–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Toscan J, Mairs K, Hinton S, Stolee P. Integrated transitional care: patient, informal caregiver and health care provider perspectives on care transitions for older persons with hip fracture. Int J Integr Care. 2012;12:e13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Brooks L, Stolee P, Elliott J, Heckman G. Transitional care experiences of patients with hip fracture across different health care settings. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(2):2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hestevik CH, Molin M, Debesay J, Bergland A, Bye A. Older persons’ experiences of adapting to daily life at home after hospital discharge: a qualitative metasummary. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Backman C, Stacey D, Crick M, Cho-Young D, Marck PB. Use of participatory visual narrative methods to explore older adults’ experiences of managing multiple chronic conditions during care transitions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):482.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kraun L, De Vliegher K, Vandamme M, Holtzheimer E, Ellen M, van Achterberg T. Older peoples’ and informal caregivers’ experiences, views, and needs in transitional care decision-making: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2022;134:104303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. WHO. Health promotion glossary. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cardoso Barbosa H, de Queiroz Oliveira JA, Moreira da Costa J, de Melo Santos RP, Gonçalves Miranda L, de Carvalho TH, et al. Empowerment-oriented strategies to identify behavior change in patients with chronic diseases: an integrative review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(4):689–702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pel-Littel RE, Snaterse M, Teppich NM, Buurman BM, van Etten-Jamaludin FS, van Weert JCM, et al. Barriers and facilitators for shared decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Lindacher V, Curbach J, Warrelmann B, Brandstetter S, Loss J. Evaluation of empowerment in health promotion interventions: a systematic review. Eval Health Prof. 2018;41(3):351–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. JBI. Critical Appraisal Tools. 2020. Available online at: Accessed 22 May 2022.

  19. Adekpedjou R, Stacey D, Brière N, Freitas A, Garvelink MM, Dogba MJ, et al. Engaging caregivers in health-related housing decisions for older adults with cognitive impairment: a cluster randomized trial. Gerontologist. 2020;60(5):947–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Coleman EA, Parry C, Chalmers S, Min SJ. The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1822–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Coleman EA, Smith JD, Frank JC, Min SJ, Parry C, Kramer AM. Preparing patients and caregivers to participate in care delivered across settings: the care transitions intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(11):1817–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grimmer KA, Dryden LR, Puntumetakul R, Young AF, Guerin M, Deenadayalan Y, et al. Incorporating patient concerns into discharge plans: evaluation of a patient-generated checklist. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2006;4(2):7.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Polt G, Weixler D, Bauer N. A retrospective study about the influence of an emergency information form on the place of death of palliative care patients. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2019;169(15–16):356–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Preen DB, Bailey BE, Wright A, Kendall P, Phillips M, Hung J, et al. Effects of a multidisciplinary, post-discharge continuance of care intervention on quality of life, discharge satisfaction, and hospital length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Qual Health Care. 2005;17(1):43–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schusselé Filliettaz S, Moiroux S, Marchand G, Gilles I, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. Transitional shared decision-making processes for patients with complex needs: a feasibility study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021;27(6):1326–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Toles M, Colón-Emeric C, Naylor MD, Asafu-Adjei J, Hanson LC. Connect-home: transitional Care of Skilled Nursing Facility Patients and their caregivers. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(10):2322–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tsui K, Fleig L, Langford DP, Guy P, MacDonald V, Ashe MC. Exploring older adults’ perceptions of a patient-centered education manual for hip fracture recovery: “everything in one place”. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:1637–45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ulin K, Olsson LE, Wolf A, Ekman I. Person-centred care - an approach that improves the discharge process. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2016;15(3):e19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Shearer NB, Fleury J, Ward KA, O'Brien AM. Empowerment interventions for older adults. West J Nurs Res. 2012;34(1):24–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Castro EM, Van Regenmortel T, Vanhaecht K, Sermeus W, Van Hecke A. Patient empowerment, patient participation and patient-centeredness in hospital care: a concept analysis based on a literature review. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(12):1923–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 812656.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



LK: Conceived and designed the analysis, performed the analysis and wrote the manuscript. TvA: Conceived and designed the analysis, performed the analysis. KDV: Conceived and designed the analysis. ME: Conceived and designed the analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lotan Kraun.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search strategy and data sources.

Additional file 2.

Quality assessment of the included studies using the JBI appraisal instruments.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kraun, L., De Vliegher, K., Ellen, M. et al. Interventions for the empowerment of older people and informal caregivers in transitional care decision-making: short report of a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 23, 113 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: