Dataset Information

Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective of this exploratory study was to see how the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) may impact the daily clinical practice of sleep centres, and why it may or may not work as expected. The hypotheses were tested that this patient-reported outcome measure makes patients more aware of which of their health complaints may be related to obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), and that it improves patient-centredness of care by shifting the focus of care away from (only) medical problems towards the individual burden of disease and quality of life.

Design

Mixed methods. The quantitative study (surveys, patient records) was a before-and-after study.

Setting

Three sleep centres in The Netherlands (secondary care).

Participants

27 patients and 14 healthcare professionals were interviewed. 487 patients completed surveys pre-implementation, and 377 patients completed surveys post-implementation of the PRAQ. For the health records, 125 patients were included in the pre-implementation group, and 124 other patients in the post-implementation group.

Interventions

The PRAQ was used in clinical practice for six successive months.

Outcome measures

Scores on individual survey items, number of patients receiving non-medical treatment, adjustment of treatment at first follow-up, compliance with treatment.

Results

Patients were generally positive about the usefulness of the PRAQ before and during the consultation, as they felt more informed. Healthcare providers did not consider the PRAQ very useful, and they reported minor impact on their consultations. The surveys and health record study did not show an impact of the PRAQ on clinical practice.

Conclusions

Implementing the PRAQ may be beneficial to patients, but this study does not show much impact with regard to patient-centredness of care. New Dutch guidelines for OSA care may lead to a greater emphasis on quality of life and value of care for patients, making its integration in clinical care potentially more useful.

SUBMITTER: Abma IL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6585829 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

Abma Inger L IL Rovers Maroeska M MM IJff Marijke M Hol Bernard B Nägele Masha M Westert Gert P GP van der Wees Philip J PJ

BMJ open 20190614 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective of this exploratory study was to see how the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) may impact the daily clinical practice of sleep centres, and why it may or may not work as expected. The hypotheses were tested that this patient-reported outcome measure makes patients more aware of which of their health complaints may be related to obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), and that it improves patient-centredness of care by shifting the focus of care away from (only) ...[more]

PMID: 31203238

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing evidence that renal replacement therapy option education (RRTOE) can result in enhanced quality of life, improved clinical outcomes, and reduced health care costs. However, there is still no detailed guidance on the optimal way to run such programmes. To help address this knowledge gap, an expert meeting was held in March 2013 to formulate a position statement on optimal ways to run RRTOE. Experts were selected from units that had extensive experience in RRTOE or were performing research in this field. Before the meeting, experts completed a pilot questionnaire on RRTOE in their own units. They also prepared feedback on how to modify this questionnaire for a large-scale study.MethodsA pilot, web-based questionnaire was used to obtain information on: the renal unit and patients, the education team, RRTOE processes and content, how quality is assessed, and funding.ResultsFour nurses, 5 nephrologists and 1 clinical psychologist (9 renal units; 6 EU countries) participated. Nurses were almost always responsible for organising RRTOE. Nephrologists spent 7.5% (median) of their time on RRTOE. Education for the patient and family began several months before dialysis or according to disease progression. Key topics such as the 'impact of the disease' were covered by every unit, but only a few units described all dialysis modalities. Visits to the unit were almost always arranged. Materials came in a wide variety of forms and from a wide range of sources. Group education sessions were used in 3/9 centres. Expectations on the timing of patients' decisions on modality and permanent access differed substantially between centres. Common quality assurance measures were: patient satisfaction, course attendance, updated materials. Only 1 unit had a dedicated budget.ConclusionsThere were substantial variations in how RRTOE is run between the units. A modified version of this questionnaire will be used to assess RRTOE at a European level.

Project description:Abstract Background Patient perspectives on their disease are undoubtedly important in clinical trials and in practice. To date, no patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire assessing symptoms of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been developed following FDA guidance. The CDI-DaySyms™ is a new comprehensive measure of a broad range of local and systemic CDI symptoms (not only diarrhea) that patients report as meaningful. Objectives were to: finalize the CDI-DaySyms™ items (questions); assign them to domains (concepts); evaluate the questionnaire’s measurement properties; and define responder thresholds. Methods Blinded data from a sub-study of two Phase III trials (NCT01987895 and NCT01983683) in CDI patients were analyzed following FDA guidance for validating PRO questionnaires. Patients completed the CDI-DaySyms™ daily from Day 1 until end of treatment. Items were selected for inclusion in the final questionnaire based on a range of validation analyses, input from expert clinicians, and findings from prior qualitative patient research. Responder-threshold analyses used Day-3 data to align with the rapid symptom improvement generally seen in response to CDI therapy. Results Data were analyzed for 168 CDI patients (median age 60 years; 67.9% female; 81.5% mild/moderate, 11.3% severe, 7.1% unknown disease severity; 80.4% first CDI occurrence, 19.6% first recurrence). Three of the 13 items in the draft CDI-DaySyms™ were deleted; the remaining 10 were statistically assigned to three domains measuring different symptom concepts (Figure). Individual items in each domain correlated strongly with one another and their domain. Domain scores demonstrated acceptable consistency over time in stable patients, were sensitive to change, and correlated in expected directions with scores of other relevant symptom and disease-severity measures. Responder thresholds were defined as score changes of -1.00, -0.80, and -0.70 for Diarrhea, Abdominal, and Systemic/Other Symptoms domain scores, respectively. Conclusion The CDI-DaySyms™ is a valid measure of diarrhea and other CDI symptoms useful in assessing response to therapy. It has good measurement properties, and with only 10 items can be easily administered in clinical trials and in practice. Disclosures G. H. Talbot, Actelion: Board Member, Consultant and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee; L. Kleinman, Actelion: Consultant, Research support; ? E. W. Davies, Actelion: Employee, Salary; E. Hunsche, Actelion: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; L. Roberts, Actelion: Consultant, Research support; C. E. Nord, Actelion: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee

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:IntroductionThe global prevalence of diabetes in 2019 in adults was estimated to be 9.3%. This study developed in Ecuador, for the first time, instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes and experiences.MethodsThe Experiences of the Person with Diabetes (EPD) Questionnaire is a diabetes-specific instrument. A mixed-methods study was conducted. First, a qualitative item development phase that included four focus groups and six semi-structured interviews with patients was conducted in different rural and urban areas of Ecuador to obtain information on culture, beliefs, demographics, diet and social perspectives. A second quantitative phase for psychometric validation was carried out in primary care settings of rural and urban areas of Ecuador.ResultsForty-two and four hundred and eighty-nine participants were included in each phase, respectively. The item development phase resulted in a questionnaire of 44 items (23 for perceived outcomes and 21 for experiences). In the validation study, most participants were women (58%) and from urban areas (57%). Exploratory factor analysis revealed three dimensions for each instrument. Outcomes instrument dimensions were symptoms and burnout, worries and fears and social limitations. Experiences instrument dimensions were information, patient-centred care and care delivery. Cronbach's α values of the total score and dimensions were high, ranging between .81 and .93 in both instruments. Confirmatory factor analysis showed an acceptable fit of the data.ConclusionThe EPD Questionnaire is probably the first instrument developed to assess patient-reported experiences and perceived outcomes in a middle-income country that included patients to capture all dimensions relevant for the intended population. Its psychometric properties are robust and could provide valuable information for clinicians and policymakers in the region.Patient or public contributionThe development of these instruments has taken into consideration patients and the public since their conception. A qualitative approach gathered relevant information related to the cultural, social and economic burden of different populations in Ecuador. Before validation, a pilot test was carried out with users of the National Health Services to obtain their perspectives and insights of the developed instrument. Finally, during the data analysis, we have given special consideration to social variables such as rural and urban populations.

Dataset Information

Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Does the Patient-Reported Apnea Questionnaire (PRAQ) increase patient-centredness in the daily practice of sleep centres? a mixed-methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets