Dataset Information

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.

Objective

To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.

Methods

Search strategy

we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.

Inclusion criteria

eligible studies investigated preferences of patients, family members, the general population or healthcare professionals for health outcomes. The intention of this review was to include studies which focus on theoretical alternatives; studies which assessed preferences for distinct treatments were excluded.

Data extraction

study characteristics as study objective, health condition, participants, elicitation method, and outcomes assessed in the study were extracted.

Main results

One hundred and twenty-four studies were identified and categorized into four groups: (1) multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) (n = 71), (2) rating or ranking (n = 25), (3) utility eliciting (n = 5) and (4) studies comparing different methods (n = 23). The number of outcomes assessed by method group varied. The comparison of different methods or subgroups within one study often resulted in different hierarchies of outcomes.

Conclusions

A dominant method most suitable for application in evidence syntheses was not identified. As preferences of patients differ from those of other stakeholders (especially medical professionals), the choice of the group to be questioned is consequential. Further research needs to focus on validity and applicability of the identified methods.

SUBMITTER: Janssen IM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5810654 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Janssen Inger M IM Gerhardus Ansgar A Schröer-Günther Milly A MA Scheibler Fülöp F

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20140825 6

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence synthesis has seen major methodological advances in reducing uncertainty and estimating the sizes of the effects. Much less is known about how to assess the relative value of different outcomes.<h4>Objective</h4>To identify studies that assessed preferences for outcomes in health conditions.<h4>Methods</h4><h4>Search strategy</h4>we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library in February 2014.<h4>Inclusion criteria</h4>eligible studies investigated pre ...[more]

PMID: 25156207

Similar Datasets

Project description:Intersectionality recognizes that in the context of sociohistorically shaped structural power relations, an individual's multiple social positions or identities (e.g., gender, ethnicity) can interact to affect health-related outcomes. Despite limited methodological guidance, intersectionality frameworks have increasingly been incorporated into epidemiological studies, both to describe health disparities and to examine their causes. This study aimed to advance methods in intersectional estimation of binary outcomes in descriptive health disparities research through evaluation of 7 potentially intersectional data analysis methods: cross-classification, regression with interactions, multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity (MAIHDA), and decision trees (CART, CTree, CHAID, random forest). Accuracy of estimated intersection-specific outcome prevalence was evaluated across 192 intersections using simulated data scenarios. For comparison we included a non-intersectional main effects regression. We additionally assessed variable selection performance amongst decision trees. Example analyses using National Health and Nutrition Examination Study data illustrated differences in results between methods. At larger sample sizes, all methods except for CART performed better than non-intersectional main effects regression. In smaller samples, MAIHDA was the most accurate method but showed no advantage over main effects regression, while random forest, cross-classification, and saturated regression were the least accurate, and CTree and CHAID performed moderately well. CART performed poorly for estimation and variable selection. Sensitivity analyses examining the bias-variance tradeoff suggest MAIHDA as the preferred unbiased method for accurate estimation of high-dimensional intersections at smaller sample sizes. Larger sample sizes are more imperative for other methods. Results support the adoption of an intersectional approach to descriptive epidemiology.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care professionals (HCPs) use clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to make evidence-informed decisions regarding patient care. Although a large number of cancer-related CPGs exist, it is unknown which CPG dissemination and implementation strategies are effective for improving HCP behaviour and patient outcomes in a cancer care context. This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of CPG dissemination and/or implementation strategies among HCPs in a cancer care context.MethodsA comprehensive search of five electronic databases was conducted. Studies were limited to the dissemination and/or implementation of a CPG targeting both medical and/or allied HCPs in cancer care. Two reviewers independently coded strategies using the Mazza taxonomy, extracted study findings, and assessed study quality.ResultsThe search strategy identified 33 studies targeting medical and/or allied HCPs. Across the 33 studies, 23 of a possible 49 strategies in the Mazza taxonomy were used, with a mean number of 3.25 (SD = 1.45) strategies per intervention. The number of strategies used per intervention was not associated with positive outcomes. Educational strategies (n = 24), feedback on guideline compliance (n = 11), and providing reminders (n = 10) were the most utilized strategies. When used independently, providing reminders and feedback on CPG compliance corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes. Further, when used as part of multi-strategy interventions, group education and organizational strategies (e.g. creation of an implementation team) corresponded with positive significant changes in outcomes.ConclusionsFuture CPG dissemination and implementation interventions for cancer care HCPs may benefit from utilizing the identified strategies. Research in this area should aim for better alignment between study objectives, intervention design, and evaluation measures, and should seek to incorporate theory in intervention design, so that behavioural antecedents are considered and measured; doing so would enhance the field's understanding of the causal mechanisms by which interventions lead, or do not lead, to changes in outcomes at all levels.

Project description:ImportanceMultiple sclerosis (MS) severity may be informed by premorbid sociodemographic factors.ObjectiveTo determine whether premorbid education, income, and marital status are associated with future MS disability and symptom severity, independent of treatment, in a universal health care context.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationwide observational cohort study examined data from the Swedish MS Registry linked to national population registries from 2000 to 2020. Participants included people with MS onset from 2005 to 2015 and of working age (aged 23 to 59 years) 1 year and 5 years preceding disease onset.ExposuresIncome quartile, educational attainment, and marital status measured at 1 and 5 years preceding disease onset.Main outcome and measuresRepeated measures of Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores and patient-reported Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) scores. Models were adjusted for age, sex, relapses, disease duration, and treatment exposure. Secondary analyses further adjusted for comorbidity. All analyses were stratified by disease course (relapse onset and progressive onset).ResultsThere were 4557 patients (mean [SD] age, 37.5 [9.3] years; 3136 [68.8%] female, 4195 [92.1%] relapse-onset MS) with sociodemographic data from 1-year preonset of MS. In relapse-onset MS, higher premorbid income and education correlated with lower disability (EDSS, -0.16 [95% CI, -0.12 to -0.20] points) per income quartile; EDSS, -0.47 [95% CI, -0.59 to -0.35] points if tertiary educated), physical symptoms (MSIS-29 physical subscore, -14% [95% CI, -11% to -18%] per income quartile; MSIS-29 physical subscore, -43% [95% CI, -35% to -50%] if tertiary educated), and psychological symptoms (MSIS-29 psychological subscore, -12% [95% CI, -9% to -16%] per income quartile; MSIS-29 psychological subscore, -25% [95% CI, -17% to -33%] if tertiary educated). Marital separation was associated with adverse outcomes (EDSS, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.18 to 0.51]; MSIS-29 physical subscore, 35% [95% CI, 12% to 62%]; MSIS-29 psychological subscore, 25% [95% CI, 8% to 46%]). In progressive-onset MS, higher income correlated with lower EDSS (-0.30 [95% CI, -0.48 to -0.11] points per income quartile) whereas education correlated with lower physical (-34% [95% CI, -53% to -7%]) and psychological symptoms (-33% [95% CI, -54% to -1%]). Estimates for 5-years preonset were comparable with 1-year preonset, as were the comorbidity-adjusted findings.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of working-age adults with MS, premorbid income, education, and marital status correlated with disability and symptom severity in relapse-onset and progressive-onset MS, independent of treatment. These findings suggest that socioeconomic status may reflect both structural and individual determinants of health in MS.

Project description:BackgroundWe used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER).MethodsWe considered potential PCOs ("benefits" and "harms") related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs). We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases and key websites and examined FDA prescribing information and reports of clinical trials and systematic reviews. We asked patient and clinician co-investigators to identify PCOs. Part 2 (not part of our original study protocol): in 2015, we surveyed members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., a patient group associated with temporomandibular disorders (4130 invitations sent). Participants prioritized (1) the importance of six potential benefits and (2) 21 potential harms selected by the investigators in part 1, using stated preference methods. We calculated descriptive statistics.ResultsIn part 1, we identified a COS for pain, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations. The COS identified several important benefits, but it lacked specific recommendations about which potential harms to include in CER. We did not identify a COS for bipolar depression. Research reports, prescribing information, and patient co-investigators helped identify but not prioritize outcomes. We abandoned our electronic search for PCO research because we found it would be resource-intensive and yield few relevant reports. In part 2, surveying patients was useful for prioritizing PCOs. Members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., completed the survey (N =?746) and successfully prioritized both benefits and harms. Participants did not identify many benefits other than those we identified in part 1; several participants identified additional harms.ConclusionsThese exploratory results could inform future research about identifying and prioritizing PCOs. We found that stakeholder co-investigators and research reports contributed to identifying PCOs; surveying a patient group contributed to prioritizing PCOs. Prioritizing potential harms was particularly challenging because there are many more potential harms than potential benefits. Methods for identifying and prioritizing potential benefits for CER might not be appropriate for harms. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care provider (HCP) performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often inadequate. The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of the effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. We present the HCPPR's methods, describe methodological and contextual attributes of included studies, and examine time trends of study attributes.MethodsThe HCPPR includes studies from LMICs that quantitatively evaluated any strategy to improve HCP performance for any health condition, with no language restrictions. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. In 2006, we searched 15 databases for published studies; in 2008 and 2010, we completed searches of 30 document inventories for unpublished studies. Data from eligible reports were double-abstracted and entered into a database, which is publicly available. The primary outcome measure was the strategy's effect size. We assessed time trends with logistic, Poisson, and negative binomial regression modeling. We were unable to register with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) because the protocol was developed prior to the PROSPERO launch.ResultsWe screened 105,299 citations and included 824 reports from 499 studies of 161 intervention strategies. Most strategies had multiple components and were tested by only one study each. Studies were from 79 countries and had diverse methodologies, geographic settings, HCP types, work environments, and health conditions. Training, supervision, and patient and community supports were the most commonly evaluated strategy components. Only 33.6% of studies had a low or moderate risk of bias. From 1958-2003, the number of studies per year and study quality increased significantly over time, as did the proportion of studies from low-income countries. Only 36.3% of studies reported information on strategy cost or cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsStudies have reported on the efficacy of many strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. However, most studies have important methodological limitations. The HCPPR is a publicly accessible resource for decision-makers, researchers, and others interested in improving HCP performance.

Project description:BackgroundGreater understanding about the prevention and treatment of overweight and obesity in preschool children within public health care is needed. This study assessed the impact of The First Steps module in routine primary health care including mapping of height/weight and diet followed by parental counselling of healthy habits on overweight and obesity in children aged 2 to 7 years. Further, we explored the experiences of public health nurses (PHNs) with the module.MethodsBody weight and height obtained in 2014 and 2016 were extracted retrospectively for 676 children from the health records of children at 2, 4, or 6 years of age in five child health centers in Southern Norway. Sex- and age-adjusted body mass index (BMI) z-scores and weight status classifications were calculated according to the International Obesity Task Force reference values. Impact was assessed as change in mean BMI z-scores for children with under-, normal-, and overweight, respectively, and as proportion of children with overweight and obesity. In focus groups, PHNs described their experiences with the practical application of the module. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis.ResultsMean BMI z-scores decreased from 2014 to 2016 in overweight children (- 0.26) and increased in children with under- (0.63) and normal weight (0.06), whereas the proportion of children with overweight and obesity was stable. PHNs believed that the module provides them with new tools that are useful for addressing the intricacies of childhood obesity. They described counseling sessions with families as "moving upstream in a river" and that overweight and obesity may be one of many complex challenges for these families.ConclusionsMean BMI z-score decreased in children with overweight during the 2 years after initiation of The First Steps module. PHNs considered the module as useful for addressing children's overweight and obesity, which was perceived as one of several complex challenges for most of these families. Specialist and evidence-based support is needed to address overweight and obesity in children in primary care. Further research should focus on integrating the issues relating to overweight and obesity within other family problems.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought social, economic, and health impacts, requiring fast adaptation of health systems. Although information and communication technologies were essential for achieving this objective, the extent to which health systems incorporated this technology is unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to map the use of digital health strategies in primary health care worldwide and their impact on quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsWe performed a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute manual and guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic and comprehensive three-step search was performed in June and July 2021 in multidisciplinary health science databases and the gray literature. Data extraction and eligibility were performed by two authors independently and interpreted using thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 44 studies were included and six thematic groups were identified: characterization and geographic distribution of studies; nomenclatures of digital strategies adopted; types of information and communication technologies; characteristics of digital strategies in primary health care; impacts on quality of care; and benefits, limitations, and challenges of digital strategies in primary health care. The impacts on organization of quality of care were investigated by the majority of studies, demonstrating the strengthening of (1) continuity of care; (2) economic, social, geographical, time, and cultural accessibility; (3) coordination of care; (4) access; (5) integrality of care; (6) optimization of appointment time; (7) and efficiency. Negative impacts were also observed in the same dimensions, such as reduced access to services and increased inequity and unequal use of services offered, digital exclusion of part of the population, lack of planning for defining the role of professionals, disarticulation of actions with real needs of the population, fragile articulation between remote and face-to-face modalities, and unpreparedness of professionals to meet demands using digital technologies.ConclusionsThe results showed the positive and negative impacts of remote strategies on quality of care in primary care and the inability to take advantage of the potential of technologies. This may demonstrate differences in the organization of fast and urgent implementation of digital strategies in primary health care worldwide. Primary health care must strengthen its response capacity, expand the use of information and communication technologies, and manage challenges using scientific evidence since digital health is important and must be integrated into public service.

Dataset Information

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Background

Objective

Methods

Search strategy

Inclusion criteria

Data extraction

Main results

Conclusions

Publications

A descriptive review on methods to prioritize outcomes in a health care context.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets