Dataset Information

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stroke, like many long-term conditions, tends to be managed in isolation of its associated risk factors and multimorbidity. With increasing access to clinical and research data there is the potential to combine data from a variety of sources to inform interventions to improve healthcare. A 'Learning Health System' (LHS) is an innovative model of care which transforms integrated data into knowledge to improve healthcare. The objective of this study is to develop a process of engaging stakeholders in the use of clinical and research data to co-produce potential solutions, informed by a LHS, to improve long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity.

Methods

We used a stakeholder engagement study design informed by co-production principles to engage stakeholders, including service users, carers, general practitioners and other health and social care professionals, service managers, commissioners of services, policy makers, third sector representatives and researchers. Over a 10 month period we used a range of methods including stakeholder group meetings, focus groups, nominal group techniques (priority setting and consensus building) and interviews. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.

Results

37 participants took part in the study. The concept of how data might drive intervention development was difficult to convey and understand. The engagement process led to four priority areas for needs for data and information being identified by stakeholders: 1) improving continuity of care; 2) improving management of mental health consequences; 3) better access to health and social care; and 4) targeting multiple risk factors. These priorities informed preliminary design interventions. The final choice of intervention was agreed by consensus, informed by consideration of the gap in evidence and local service provision, and availability of robust data. This shaped a co-produced decision support tool to improve secondary prevention after stroke for further development.

Conclusions

Stakeholder engagement to identify data-driven solutions is feasible but requires resources. While a number of potential interventions were identified, the final choice rested not just on stakeholder priorities but also on data availability. Further work is required to evaluate the impact and implementation of data-driven interventions for long-term stroke survivors.

SUBMITTER: Sadler E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5419597 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement.

Sadler Euan E Porat Talya T Marshall Iain I Hoang Uy U Curcin Vasa V Wolfe Charles D A CDA McKevitt Christopher C

PloS one 20170505 5

<h4>Background</h4>Stroke, like many long-term conditions, tends to be managed in isolation of its associated risk factors and multimorbidity. With increasing access to clinical and research data there is the potential to combine data from a variety of sources to inform interventions to improve healthcare. A 'Learning Health System' (LHS) is an innovative model of care which transforms integrated data into knowledge to improve healthcare. The objective of this study is to develop a process of en ...[more]

PMID: 28475606

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Study is one of the first large pragmatic randomized-controlled clinical trials using comparative effectiveness research methods, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. In the COMPASS Study, we compare the effectiveness of a patient-centered, transitional care intervention versus usual care for stroke patients discharged home from acute care. Outcomes include stroke patient post-discharge functional status and caregiver strain 90 days after discharge, and hospital readmissions. A central tenet of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research is stakeholder engagement throughout the research process. However, evidence on how to successfully implement a pragmatic trial that changes systems of care in combination with robust stakeholder engagement is limited. This combination is not without challenges. METHODS:We present our approach for broad-based stakeholder engagement in the context of a pragmatic trial with the participation of patients, caregivers, community stakeholders, including the North Carolina Stroke Care Collaborative hospital network, and policy makers. To maximize stakeholder engagement throughout the COMPASS Study, we employed a conceptual model with the following components: (1) Patient and Other Stakeholder Identification and Selection; (2) Patient and Other Stakeholder Involvement Across the Spectrum of Research Activities; (3) Dedicated Resources for Patient and Other Stakeholder Involvement; (4) Support for Patient and Other Stakeholder Engagement Through Organizational Processes; (5) Communication with Patients and Other Stakeholders; (6) Transparent Involvement Processes; (7) Tracking of Engagement; and (8) Evaluation of Engagement. CONCLUSION:In this paper, we describe how each component of the model is being implemented and how this approach addresses existing gaps in the literature on strategies for engaging stakeholders in meaningful and useful ways when conducting pragmatic trials.

Project description:Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly aggressive type of glioma with poor prognosis. However, a small number of patients live much longer than the median survival. A better understanding of these long-term survivors (LTS) may provide important insight into the biology of GBM. We identified 7 patients with GBM treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) with survival greater than 48 months. We characterized the transcriptome of each patient and determined rates of MGMT promoter methylation and IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status. We identified LTS in two independent cohorts (TCGA and REMBRANDT) and analyzed the transcriptomal characteristics of these LTS. The median overall survival of our cohort was 62.5 months. LTS were distributed between the proneural (n=2), neural (n=2), classical (n=2) and mesenchymal (n=1) subtypes. Similarly, LTS in the TCGA and REMBRANDT cohorts demonstrated diverse transcriptomal subclassification identity. The majority of the MSKCC LTS (71%) were found to have methylation of the MGMT promoter. None of the patients had an IDH1 or IDH2 mutations, and IDH mutation occurred in a minority of the TCGA LTS as well. A set of 42 genes was found to be differentially expressed in the MSKCC and TCGA LTS. While IDH mutant proneural tumors impart a better prognosis in the short-term, survival beyond 4 years does not require IDH mutation and is not dictated by a single transcriptional subclass. In contrast, MGMT methylation continues to have strong prognostic value for survival beyond 4 years. These findings have substantial impact for understanding GBM biology and progression. All tumors (n = 7) were obtained following surgical resection at the MSKCC as part of routine clinical care, and snap frozen. Tumors were obtained in accordance with Institutional Review Board policies at the MSKCC. Each sample was examined histologically by 3 independent neuropathologists and confirmed to be World Health Organization (WHO) grade IV glioma (GBM). Before analysis, tumors were sectioned and microdissected. Genomic DNA or RNA was extracted using the DNeasy kit (Qiagen) or RNeasy Lipid Tissue Mini Kit (Qiagen) as per the manufacturer’s instructions. Expression analysis of tumors was performed using the Affymetrics U133 2.0 microarray (Affymetrix). Affymetrix CEL files were imported into the Partek Genomics Suite (Partek). The TCGA gene expression data (HT-HG-U133A) was accessed from the TCGA data repositories (http://cancergenome.nih.gov, date of download 12/2013).

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify, chart and analyse the literature on recent initiatives to improve long-term care (LTC) coverage, financial protection and financial sustainability for persons aged 60 and older.DesignRapid scoping review.Data sourcesFour databases and four sources of grey literature were searched for reports published between 2017 and 2022. After using a supervised machine learning tool to rank titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently screened sources against inclusion criteria.Eligibility criteriaStudies published from 2017-2022 in any language that captured recent LTC initiatives for people aged 60 and older, involved evaluation and directly addressed financing were included.Data extraction and analysisData were extracted using a form designed to answer the review questions and analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis, with data categorised according to a prespecified framework to capture the outcomes of interest.ResultsOf 24 reports, 22 were published in peer-reviewed journals, and two were grey literature sources. Study designs included quasi-experimental study, policy analysis or comparison, qualitative description, comparative case study, cross-sectional study, systematic literature review, economic evaluation and survey. Studies addressed coverage based on the level of disability, income, rural/urban residence, employment and citizenship. Studies also addressed financial protection, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, copayments and risk of poverty related to costs of care. The reports addressed challenges to financial sustainability such as lack of service coordination and system integration, insufficient economic development and inadequate funding models.ConclusionsInitiatives where LTC insurance is mandatory and accompanied by commensurate funding are situated to facilitate ageing in place. Efforts to expand population coverage are common across the initiatives, with the potential for wider economic benefits. Initiatives that enable older people to access the services needed while avoiding OOP-induced poverty contribute to improved health and well-being. Preserving health in older people longer may alleviate downstream costs and contribute to financial sustainability.

Project description:BackgroundNumerous transitional care innovations (TCIs) are being developed and implemented to optimize care continuity for older persons when transferring between multiple care settings, help meet their care needs, and ultimately improve their quality of life. Although the implementation of TCIs is influenced by contextual factors, the use of effective implementation strategies is largely lacking. Thus, to improve the implementation of TCIs targeting older persons receiving long-term care services, we systematically developed a set of viable strategies selected to address the influencing factors.MethodsAs part of the TRANS-SENIOR research network, a stepwise approach following Implementation Mapping (steps 1 to 3) was applied to select implementation strategies. Building on the findings of previous studies, existing TCIs and factors influencing their implementation were identified. A combination of four taxonomies and overviews of change methods as well as relevant evidence on their effectiveness were used to select the implementation strategies targeting each of the relevant factors. Subsequently, individual consultations with scientific experts were performed for further validation of the process of mapping strategies to implementation factors and for capturing alternative ideas on relevant implementation strategies.ResultsTwenty TCIs were identified and 12 influencing factors (mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) were designated as priority factors to be addressed with implementation strategies. A total of 40 strategies were selected. The majority of these target factors at the organizational level, e.g., by using structural redesign, public commitment, changing staffing models, conducting local consensus discussions, and organizational diagnosis and feedback. Strategies at the level of individuals included active learning, belief selection, and guided practice. Each strategy was operationalized into practical applications.ConclusionsThis project developed a set of theory and evidence-based implementation strategies to address the influencing factors, along further tailoring for each context, and enhance the implementation of TCIs in daily practice settings. Such work is critical to advance the use of implementation science methods to implement innovations in long-term care successfully.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Due to risk for treatment-related late effects and concerns about cancer recurrence, long-term cancer survivors have unique medical needs. Survivors' preferences for care may influence adherence and care utilization. OBJECTIVE:To describe survivors' preferences for care and factors associated with preferred and actual care. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of participants in a longitudinal study using mailed questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS:Survivors of ten common cancers (n?=?2,107, mean years from diagnosis 8.9). MAIN MEASURES:(1) Survivors' preferences for primary care physician (PCP) and oncologist responsibilities across four types of care: cancer follow-up, cancer screening, preventive health, and comorbid conditions. (2) Survivor-reported visits to PCPs and oncologists. KEY RESULTS:The response rate was 42.1%. Most long-term survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up (63%) and subsequent screening (65%), while preferring PCP-led preventive health (77%) and comorbid condition (83%) care. Most survivors (88%) preferred oncologists involved in cancer follow-up care, but only 60% reported an oncologist visit in the previous 4 years, and 96% reported a PCP visit in the previous 4 years. In multivariable regressions, those with higher fear of cancer recurrence were less likely to prefer PCP-led cancer follow-up care (OR?=?0.96, CI?=?0.93-0.98), as did survivors with advanced cancer stage (OR?=?0.56, CI?=?0.39-0.79). Those with higher fear of recurrence (OR?=?1.03, CI?=?1.01-1.04) or who preferred oncologist-led cancer follow-up care (OR?=?2.08, CI?=?1.63-2.65) had greater odds of seeing an oncologist in the last 4 years. CONCLUSIONS:Most cancer survivors preferred PCPs and oncologists share care for cancer follow-up and screening, yet many had not seen an oncologist recently. Survivors preferred PCP-led care for other preventive services and management of comorbid conditions. These findings highlight the important role PCPs could play in survivor care, suggesting the need for PCP-oriented education and health system policies that support high-quality PCP-led survivor care.

Dataset Information

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets