Dataset Information

A realist evaluation of patients' decisions to deprescribe in the EMPOWER trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Successful mechanisms for engaging patients in the deprescribing process remain unknown but may include: (1) triggering motivation to deprescribe by increasing patients' knowledge and concern about medications; (2) building capacity to taper by augmenting self-efficacy and (3) creating opportunities to discuss and receive support for deprescribing from a healthcare provider. We tested these mechanisms during theEliminating Medications through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) () trial and investigated the contexts that led to positive and negative deprescribing outcomes. DESIGN:A realist evaluation using a sequential mixed methods approach, conducted alongside the EMPOWER randomised clinical trial. SETTING:Community, Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS:261 older chronic benzodiazepine consumers, who received the EMPOWER intervention and had complete 6-month follow-up data. INTERVENTION:Mailed deprescribing brochure on benzodiazepines. MEASUREMENTS:Motivation (intent to discuss deprescribing; change in knowledge test score; change in beliefs about the risk-benefits of benzodiazepines, measured with the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire), capacity (self-efficacy for tapering) and opportunity (support from a physician or pharmacist). RESULTS:The intervention triggered the motivation to deprescribe among 167 (n=64%) participants (mean age 74.6 years±6.3, 72% women), demonstrated by improved knowledge (risk difference, 58.50% (95% CI 46.98% to 67.44%)) and increased concern about taking benzodiazepines (risk difference, 67.67% (95% CI 57.36% to 74.91%)). Those who attempted to taper exhibited increased self-efficacy (risk difference, 56.90% (95% CI 45.41% to 65.77%)). Contexts where the deprescribing mechanisms failed included lack of support from a healthcare provider, a focus on short-term quality of life, intolerance to withdrawal symptoms and perceived poor health. CONCLUSION:Deprescribing mechanisms that target patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe yield successful outcomes in contexts where healthcare providers are supportive, and patients do not have internal competing desires to remain on drug therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01148186.

SUBMITTER: Martin P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5566584 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A realist evaluation of patients' decisions to deprescribe in the EMPOWER trial.

Martin Philippe P Tannenbaum Cara C

BMJ open 20170504 4

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Successful mechanisms for engaging patients in the deprescribing process remain unknown but may include: (1) triggering motivation to deprescribe by increasing patients' knowledge and concern about medications; (2) building capacity to taper by augmenting self-efficacy and (3) creating opportunities to discuss and receive support for deprescribing from a healthcare provider. We tested these mechanisms during theEliminating Medications through Patient Ownership o ...[more]

PMID: 28473524

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow back pain (LBP) and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are major contributors to disability worldwide. These conditions result in a significant burden at both individual and societal levels. Engagement in regular physical activity and exercise programs are known to improve physical function in both chronic LBP and knee OA populations. For people residing in rural areas, musculoskeletal conditions are often more frequent and disabling compared to urban populations, which could be the result of reduced access to appropriate health services and resources in rural settings. EHealth is an innovative solution to help provide equitable access to treatment for people with musculoskeletal pain living in rural settings.Methods/designWe will conduct a randomised clinical trial investigating the effects of an eHealth intervention compared to usual care, for people with chronic non-specific LBP or knee OA in rural Australia. We will recruit 156 participants with non-specific chronic LBP or knee OA. Following the completion of baseline questionnaires, participants will be randomly allocated to either the eHealth intervention group, involving a tailored physical activity and progressive resistance exercise program remotely delivered by a physiotherapist (n = 78), or usual care (n = 78) involving referral to a range of care practices in the community. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months post-randomisation. The primary outcome will be physical function assessed by the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, physical activity levels, activity limitations, quality of life, pain coping. We will also collect process evaluation data such as recruitment rate, attendance and adherence, follow-up rate, participants' opinions and any barriers encountered throughout the trial.DiscussionThe findings from this trial will establish the effectiveness of eHealth-delivered interventions that are known to be beneficial for people with LBP and knee OA when delivered in person. As a result, this trial will help to inform health care policy and clinical practice in Australia and beyond for those living in non-urban areas.Trial registrationThis study was prospectively registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001494224 ) registered 09.05.2018.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objectives of this study were to develop and refine EMPOWER (Enhancing and Mobilizing the POtential for Wellness and Resilience), a brief manualized cognitive-behavioral, acceptance-based intervention for surrogate decision-makers of critically ill patients and to evaluate its preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and promise in improving surrogates' mental health and patient outcomes.MethodPart 1 involved obtaining qualitative stakeholder feedback from 5 bereaved surrogates and 10 critical care and mental health clinicians. Stakeholders were provided with the manual and prompted for feedback on its content, format, and language. Feedback was organized and incorporated into the manual, which was then re-circulated until consensus. In Part 2, surrogates of critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) reporting moderate anxiety or close attachment were enrolled in an open trial of EMPOWER. Surrogates completed six, 15-20 min modules, totaling 1.5-2 h. Surrogates were administered measures of peritraumatic distress, experiential avoidance, prolonged grief, distress tolerance, anxiety, and depression at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and at 1-month and 3-month follow-up assessments.ResultsPart 1 resulted in changes to the EMPOWER manual, including reducing jargon, improving navigability, making EMPOWER applicable for a range of illness scenarios, rearranging the modules, and adding further instructions and psychoeducation. Part 2 findings suggested that EMPOWER is feasible, with 100% of participants completing all modules. The acceptability of EMPOWER appeared strong, with high ratings of effectiveness and helpfulness (M = 8/10). Results showed immediate post-intervention improvements in anxiety (d = -0.41), peritraumatic distress (d = -0.24), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.23). At the 3-month follow-up assessments, surrogates exhibited improvements in prolonged grief symptoms (d = -0.94), depression (d = -0.23), anxiety (d = -0.29), and experiential avoidance (d = -0.30).Significance of resultsPreliminary data suggest that EMPOWER is feasible, acceptable, and associated with notable improvements in psychological symptoms among surrogates. Future research should examine EMPOWER with a larger sample in a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Long-term recovery takes longer than expected despite improved surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs. An electronic health (eHealth) care program ("ikherstel") was developed to partially substitute perioperative care for patients undergoing colorectal surgical procedures. Successfully tested eHealth programs are not always implemented in usual care, and it is, therefore, important to evaluate the process to optimize future implementation. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the eHealth intervention was executed as planned. METHODS:A mixed-methods process evaluation was carried out alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). This evaluation was performed using the Linnan and Steckler framework for the quantitative part of this study, measuring the components reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, and participants' attitudes. Total implementation scores were calculated using the averaging approach, in which the sum of all data points is divided by the number of data points and the total adherence to the protocol is measured. For the qualitative part, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology framework was used. The quantitative data were based on participants' questionnaires, a logistic database, a weblog, and participants' medical files and were obtained by performing semistructured interviews with participants of the RCT. RESULTS:A total of 151 participants of 340 eligible patients were included in the RCT, of which 73 participants were allocated to the intervention group. On the basis of the quantitative process data, total implementation scores for the website, mobile app, electronic consult, and activity tracker were 64%, 63%, 44%, and 67%, respectively. Participants in the qualitative part experienced the program as supportive and provided guidance on their recovery process after colorectal surgery. Most frequently mentioned barriers were the limited interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and the lack of tailoring of the convalescence plan in case of a different course of recovery. CONCLUSIONS:The intervention needs more interaction with and feedback from health care professionals and needs more tailored guidance in case of different recovery or treatment courses. To ensure a successful implementation of the program in daily practice, some adjustments are required to optimize the program in a blended care form. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Registry NTR5686; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC= 5686 (Archieved by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75LrJaHrr).

Project description:BackgroundThe Nurses in the Lead (NitL) programme consists of a systematic approach and training to 1) empower community nurses in implementing evidence, targeted at encouraging functional activities of older adults, and 2) train community nurses in enabling team members to change their practice. This article aims to describe the process evaluation of NitL.MethodsA mixed-methods formative process evaluation with a predominantly qualitative approach was conducted. Qualitative data were collected by interviews with community nurses (n = 7), focus groups with team members (n = 31), and reviewing seven implementation plans and 28 patient records. Quantitative data were collected among community nurses and team members (N = 90) using a questionnaire to assess barriers in encouraging functional activities and attendance lists. Data analysis was carried out through descriptive statistics and content analysis.ResultsNitL was largely executed according to plan. Points of attention were the use and value of the background theory within the training, completion of implementation plans, and reporting in patient records by community nurses. Inhibiting factors for showing leadership and encouraging functional activities were a lack of time and a high complexity of care; facilitating factors were structure and clear communication within teams. Nurses considered the systematic approach useful and the training educational for their role. Most team members considered NitL practical and were satisfied with the coaching provided by community nurses. To optimise NitL, community nurses recommended providing the training first and extending the training. The team members recommended continuing clinical lessons, which were an implementation strategy from the community nurses.ConclusionsNitL was largely executed as planned, and appears worthy of further application in community care practice. However, adaptations are recommended to make NitL more promising in practice in empowering community nurse leadership in implementing evidence.

Project description:Objectives:The aim of the study was to explore what components of the General Medical Council's (GMC) Quality Assurance Framework work, for whom, in what circumstances and how?Setting:UK undergraduate and postgraduate medical education and training.Participants:We conducted interviews with a stratified sample of 36 individuals. This included those who had direct experiences, as well as those with external insights, representing local, national and international organisations within and outside medicine.Intervention:The GMC quality assure education to protect patient and public safety utilising complex intervention components including meeting standards, institutional visits and monitoring performance. However, the context in which these are implemented matters. We undertook an innovative realist evaluation to test an initial programme theory. Data were analysed using framework analysis.Results:Across components of the intervention, we identified key mechanisms, including transparent reporting to promote quality improvement; dialogical feedback; partnership working facilitating interactions between regulators and providers, and role clarity in conducting proportionate interventions appropriate to risk. The GMC's framework was commended for being comprehensive and enabling a broad understanding of an organisation's performance. Unintended consequences included confusion over roles and boundaries in different contexts which often undermined effectiveness.Conclusions:This realist evaluation substantiates the literature and reveals deeper understandings about quality assuring medical education. While standardised approaches are implemented, interventions need to be contextually proportionate. Routine communication is beneficial to verify data, share concerns and check risk; however, ongoing partnership working can foster assurance. The study provides a modified programme theory to explicate how education providers and regulators can work more effectively together to uphold education quality, and ultimately protect public safety. The findings have influenced the GMC's approach to quality assurance which impacts on all medical students and doctors in training.

Project description:BackgroundThe health visitors' role in many countries is changing. In Scotland, the role has undergone substantial changes through the introduction of an enhanced health visiting programme, which includes increased, structured home visits. This evaluation was conducted within NHS Ayrshire and Arran, one of the 14 Scottish Health Boards. Our aim was to understand and explain how, and why, the programme could contribute to improving health and wellbeing outcomes for children and families.MethodsWe used a realist evaluation approach, conducted in three phases. In phase one, eight managerial staff involved in developing and implementing the programme provided data, which were used to develop initial programme theories. In phase two, the programme theories were tested using qualitative data from 25 health visitors and 22 parents. The programme theories were refined through analyses and interpretation of data in phase three.ResultsThe home visiting context provided by the programme interacted with the mechanisms of the programme and produced outcomes such as early identification of health and wellbeing issues amongst families who needed more support, leading to referral and engagement with sources of additional help. The home visits facilitated development of parent-health visitor relationships, and parents considered health visitors as their first point of contact on children's wellbeing and developmental-related issues. Moreover, the programme provided more clarity to health visitors' role, which in turn enhanced partnership working. However, there were aspects of the programme that may require further development. For instance, both parents and health visitors were concerned about the wide gaps between some home visits.ConclusionsThe enhanced health visiting programme increased opportunities for monitoring and early identification of health and wellbeing concerns. It created structures for a more efficient partnership working and ensured that the needs of children and families were supported. These benefits need to be evaluated further in an effectiveness study.

Dataset Information

A realist evaluation of patients' decisions to deprescribe in the EMPOWER trial.

Publications

A realist evaluation of patients' decisions to deprescribe in the EMPOWER trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets