Dataset Information

Development and preliminary results on the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adherence to the diet prescription for chronic kidney disease is suboptimal. Interventions to improve dietary adherence suggest that improving communication between the patient and the health professional is fundamental to improving outcomes. Providing patients with a question prompt sheet prior to the consultation has been demonstrated to be an effective method for improving communication between patient and health professional. In the absence of a renal diet specific version, the aims of this study were to develop and test the feasibility of a renal diet specific question prompt sheet for use in nephrology clinics.

Methods

Phase one utilized social listening methodology, online content analysis and clinic observations to obtain an extensive list of frequently asked questions about the renal diet. Following refinement with health professionals, the draft question prompt sheet was then sent in Phase two to patients one week prior to their scheduled consultation with the renal dietitian. Feedback was obtained from patients, carers and dietitians using semi structured interviews post clinic consultation. Quantitative data was analyzed using counts and proportions, while free text responses were analyzed thematically.

Results

A total of 769 unique renal diet related questions were reduced to an 18-item question prompt sheet. Feedback from thirteen patients (six males), six carers and six dietitians involved in the preliminary feasibility study was overwhelmingly positive. The majority of patients found the question prompt sheet to be easy to understand and agreed it facilitated communication with the dietitian. All participants agreed that they would recommend use of question prompt sheet to other patients. Suggestions for future use included health professional training in use of the sheet, particularly about how to help patients prioritize their most important questions.

Conclusions

The 18-item renal diet question prompt sheet developed in this preliminary study appears to be a feasible tool for use in nephrology consultations especially by dietitians. Further research quantifying the impact on question asking and patient centeredness should be undertaken. In addition, user testing with patients from culturally diverse and low literacy backgrounds would be useful.

SUBMITTER: Lambert K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6373020 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter.Design, setting, and participantsThis controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022.InterventionQPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter.ResultsA total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate, prior to an oncology consultation, the use of a pre-prepared list of evidence based questions, Question Prompt Sheet (QPS), compared with a Question List (QL), a patient self-generated list of questions.DesignMulti-centred, randomised controlled trial.SettingSecondary-care patients attending three outpatient oncology clinics in Northern Italy.Participants308 women completed the study. Inclusion criteria were an age between 18 and 75 years, a recent diagnosis of early stage, non-metastatic breast cancer, adequate Italian language skills, no previous oncology visits and no evidence of cognitive impairment.InterventionPatients received the QPS or the QL prior to the consultation, completed it without suggestion or coaching session and delivered back before the visit.The consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for the number and content of questions. Multilevel linear models were used to compare the two groups.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the comparison of questions asked between QPS and QL group. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction about questions asked, satisfaction with decision, and level of anxiety.ResultsPatients in the QPS and QL group asked 13 and 16 questions respectively. The difference was not significant (b=1.7, CI -0.3 to 3.6, p=0.10). A mean of 22 questions was selected in the QPS, while a mean of 2 questions was written in the QL. Patients in the QPS group were significantly less satisfied (t=3.60, p<0.01) with questions asked but wanted less additional information (t=2.20, p<0.05). Levels of patient decisional satisfaction were equivalent between groups. Similarly, anxiety levels were equal between groups prior to the consultation and decreased in similar way after the consultation.ConclusionsBoth interventions have similar impact on patients' participation in terms of question asking during the consultation. Future research is needed in order to explore which components of the interventions are really useful and efficacious.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510964.

Project description:IntroductionQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) have been found to support patients to ask questions and improve the information they receive from doctors. However, some QPL tools, which have been available online for almost 15 years, have little published data on their impact in real-world settings. This study's aim was to understand patients' attitudes and experiences accessing health information and to assess the impact of introducing two generic QPLs over 3 months.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative study consisting of three semi-structured interviews over a three-month period was conducted with 31 purposively selected participants, adults ≥18 years, recruited online and through social media. Participants were introduced to two different QPLs currently available online ('Question Builder'; 'AskShareKnow'). Inductive thematic analysis of a total of 92 semi-structured telephone interviews was conducted during May-November 2020.ResultsThree main themes are described. (1) Participants described barriers and facilitators to accessing health information: navigating a complex health system; difficulty asking questions of their healthcare professionals and that they value doctors with good communication skills. (2) QPLs helped some participants recognize the role of question-asking in consultations, made them feel more empowered and helped them prepare and prioritize. (3) Participants wanted QPLs to be easier to use, be accessible when needed and that question-asking and QPLs should be normalized in medical consultations.ConclusionsWell-designed and easily accessible QPLs can empower people to ask questions and be more involved in decisions about their health care. Endorsement of question-asking in consultations by healthcare professionals and providing QPL tools at the point of contact with health services will be key to realizing the potential of QPLs.Patient or public contributionThis study was completed in conjunction with a reference group consisting of a consumer representative, representatives from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Healthdirect Australia Ltd., and the research team.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults with advanced non-dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (NDD-CKD) face a high risk of hospitalization and related adverse events.MethodsThis prospective cohort study followed nephrology clinic patients ≥60 years old with NDD-CKD stages 4-5. After an eligible patient's office visit, study staff asked the patient's provider to rate the patient's risk of death within the next year using the surprise question ("Would you be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?") with a 5-point Likert scale response (1, "definitely not surprised" to 5, "very surprised"). We used a statewide database to ascertain hospitalization during follow-up.ResultsThere were 488 patients (median age 72 years, 51% female, 17% black) with median estimated glomerular filtration rate 22 mL/min/1.73 m2. Over a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the rates of hospitalization per 100 person-years in the respective response groups were 41 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-50), "very surprised"; 65 (95% CI: 55-76), "surprised"; 98 (95% CI: 85-113), "neutral"; 125 (95% CI: 107-144), "not surprised"; and 120 (95% CI: 94-151), "definitely not surprised." In a fully adjusted cumulative probability ordinal regression model for proportion of follow-up time spent hospitalized, patients whose providers indicated that they would be "definitely not surprised" if they died spent a greater proportion of follow-up time hospitalized compared with those whose providers indicated that they would be "very surprised" (odds ratio 2.4, 95% CI: 1.0-5.7). There was a similar association for time to first hospitalization.ConclusionNephrology providers' responses to the surprise question for older patients with advanced NDD-CKD were independently associated with proportion of future time spent hospitalized and time to first hospitalization. Additional studies should examine how to use this information to provide patients with anticipatory guidance on their possible clinical trajectory and to target potentially preventable hospitalizations.