Project description:Background. Patient involvement interventions are complex interventions that improve patient involvement in treatment and care in health care systems. Studies report several benefits of patient involvement interventions and that health care professionals are positive about using them. However, they have not been explored as a collected group of interventions throughout the continuum of care and treatment. In addition, the relationship between patient involvement interventions and the clinical reasoning process of health care professionals has not been thoroughly studied. Design. This mixed-methods study was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark between April and November 2022 using interview data from 12 health care professionals and survey data from 420 health care professionals. Informants were medical doctors, nurses, midwives, dietitians, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who had direct contact with patients during their daily care and treatment. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive content analysis. Results. Communication and interaction were seen as overarching aspects of patient involvement, with patient involvement interventions being defined as concrete tools and methods to enhance health care professionals' explicit clinical reasoning process. Limitations. It is unclear if results are representative of all health care professionals at the hospital or only those with a positive view of patient involvement interventions. Conclusions. Patient involvement interventions are viewed as beneficial for patients and fit with the clinical reasoning of health care professionals. Clinical reasoning may be an active ingredient in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions. Implications. In practice, health care professionals need training in person-centered communication and the ability to articulate their clinical reasoning explicitly. In research, a more in-depth understanding of the interrelations between patient involvement interventions and clinical reasoning is needed.HighlightsCommunication and interaction are the fundamental goals of patient involvement in practice, regardless of which patient involvement intervention is being used.Clinical reasoning is often an unconscious process using tacit knowledge, but the use of patient involvement interventions may be a way for health care professionals (at both individual and group levels) to become more explicit about and aware of their reflections.Clinical reasoning can be viewed as a mechanism of change in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives.Data sources/study settingExisting literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries.Study design/data collectionWe analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians.Principal findingsFirst, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms.ConclusionsUnless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions designed to narrow the gap between research findings and clinical practice may be effective, but also costly. Economic evaluations are necessary to judge whether such interventions are worth the effort. We have evaluated the economic effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. The tailored intervention was evaluated in a randomized trial, and was shown to significantly increase the use of thiazides for patients started on antihypertensive medication, but had little or no impact on other outcomes. The increased use of thiazides was not expected to have an impact on health outcomes.Methods and findingsWe performed cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness analyses on data from a randomized trial involving 146 general practices from two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Only patients that were being started on antihypertensive medication were included in the analyses. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders. Pharmacists conducted the visits. A cost-minimization framework was adopted, where the costs of intervention were set against the reduced treatment costs (principally due to increased use of thiazides rather than more expensive medication). The cost-effectiveness of the intervention was estimated as the cost per additional patient being started on thiazides. The net annual cost (cost minimization) in our study population was 53,395 US dollars, corresponding to 763 US dollars per practice. The cost per additional patient started on thiazides (cost-effectiveness) was 454 US dollars. The net annual savings in a national program was modeled to be 761,998 US dollars, or 540 US dollars per practice after 2 y. In this scenario the savings exceeded the costs in all but two of the sensitivity analyses we conducted, and the cost-effectiveness was estimated to be 183 US dollars.ConclusionsWe found a significant shift in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs towards the use of thiazides in our trial. A major reason to promote the use of thiazides is their lower price compared to other drugs. The cost of the intervention was more than twice the savings within the time frame of our study. However, we predict modest savings over a 2-y period.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY:For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints. MAIN RESULTS:We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Effective communication between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is important to enhance outcomes in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, in practice, patients often report a disconnect in communication. Communication tools to aid patient-HCP communication have a long history of use in many chronic conditions. For example, symptom diaries have been shown to enhance outcomes in cancer, headache and sleep disorder management. MS in the 21st Century, a Steering Group of HCP specialists and patients with MS (PwMS), has created two communication tools designed for use by both patients and their HCPs. METHODS:The Steering Group first identified prominent issues in patient-HCP communication through group discussions and survey data. Following this, a series of workshops led to the development of two communication tools as potential solutions to these identified issues in communication. RESULTS:The two most prominent issues identified were HCP time constraints during appointments and the misalignment of patient and HCP priorities-the communication tools developed through the workshops were created to address these. The "myMS priorities" tool [see supplementary materials] is designed to maximize the use of consultation time while the "myMS commitments" tool [see supplementary materials] aims to improve patient-HCP shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:The MS in the 21st Century Steering Group adopted a broad, iterative and collaborative approach in the development of these tools to help ensure they would be as useful as possible to both HCPs and PwMS. These tools have been developed through shared patient-HCP expertise and are based on existing tools in other therapy areas as well as a review of the existing literature and data from MS in the 21st Century Steering Group surveys. The next steps will focus on the validation of these tools through testing them in real-world environments and clinical trials. FUNDING:Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Project description:BackgroundTechnological support may be crucial in optimizing healthcare professional practice and improving patient outcomes. A focus on electronic health records has left other technological supports relatively neglected. Additionally, there has been no comparison between different types of technology-based interventions, and the importance of delivery setting on the implementation of technology-based interventions to change professional practice. Consequently, there is a need to synthesise and examine intervention characteristics using a methodology suited to identifying important features of effective interventions, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Three aims were addressed: to identify interventions with a technological component that are successful at changing professional practice, to determine if and how such interventions are theory-based, and to examine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation.MethodsA literature review informed by realist review methods was conducted involving a systematic search of studies reporting either: (1) behavior change interventions that included technology to support professional practice change; or (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of technological interventions. Extracted data was quantitative and qualitative, and included setting, target professionals, and use of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs). The primary outcome was a change in professional practice. A thematic analysis was conducted on studies reporting barriers and facilitators of implementation.ResultsSixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 48 (27 randomized controlled trials) reported behavior change interventions and 21 reported practicalities of implementation. The most successful technological intervention was decision support providing healthcare professionals with knowledge and/or person-specific information to assist with patient management. Successful technologies were more likely to operationalise BCTs, particularly "instruction on how to perform the behavior". Facilitators of implementation included aligning studies with organisational initiatives, ensuring senior peer endorsement, and integration into clinical workload. Barriers included organisational challenges, and design, content and technical issues of technology-based interventions.ConclusionsTechnological interventions must focus on providing decision support for clinical practice using recognized behavior change techniques. Interventions must consider organizational context, clinical workload, and have clearly defined benefits for improving practice and patient outcomes.

Dataset Information

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets