Dataset Information

Support Needs Approach for Patients (SNAP) tool: a validation study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Patient-identified need is key to delivering holistic, supportive, person-centred care, but we lack tools enabling patients to express what they need to manage life with a long-term condition. The Support Needs Approach for Patients (SNAP) tool was developed to enable patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) identify and express their unmet support needs to healthcare professionals (HCPs), but its validity is unknown. This study aimed to establish face, content and criterion validity of the SNAP tool.

Design

Two-stage mixed-methods study involving patients with advanced COPD and their carers. Stage 1: Face and content validity assessed though focus groups involving patients and carers considering appropriateness, relevance and completeness of the SNAP tool. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis. Stage 2: Content and criterion validity assessed in a postal survey through patient self-completion of the SNAP tool and disease impact measures (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, COPD Assessment Test, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Content validity assessed using summary statistics; criterion validity via correlations between tool items and impact measures.

Settings and participants

Two hundred and forty patients and carers participated. Stage 1 patient and informal carer participants were recruited from two primary care practices and Stage 2 patients from 28 practices. Participating practices located in the East of England were recruited via the NIHR Clinical Research Network: Eastern.

Results

Patients and carers found the tool patient-friendly and comprehensive, with potential clinical utility. No tool items were redundant. Clear correlations were found between tool items and the majority of items in the impact measures.

Conclusions

The SNAP tool has good face, content and criterion validity. It has potential to support the delivery of holistic, supportive, person-centred care by enabling patients to identify and express their unmet support needs to HCPs.

SUBMITTER: Gardener AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6887094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInformal carers play a key supportive role for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. However, caring can have a considerable impact on health and wellbeing. Carers may have unidentified support needs that could be a target for intervention. Literature on the support needs of informal carers has not been fully synthesised, and our knowledge of the comprehensiveness of the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for these individuals is limited.AimTo explore whether the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool covers the support needs of carers of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease identified in published literature.DesignEnglish language studies were identified against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria through database searching. Further studies were identified through searching reference lists and citations of included papers. Papers were critically appraised and data extracted and synthesised by two reviewers. Identified needs were mapped to Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool questions.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, CDSR, ASSIA, PsycINFO and Scopus databases (Jan 1997-Dec 2017).ResultsTwenty-four studies were included. Results suggest that carers have support needs in a range of domains including physical, social, psychological and spiritual. Many of these needs are unmet. Particular areas of concern relate to prolonged social isolation, accessing services, emotional support and information needs. Findings also suggest amendment of the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool may be required relating to difficulties within relationship management.ConclusionEvidence suggests that carers of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease would benefit from identification and response to their support needs by healthcare professionals but to enable this, the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool requires an additional question. Future planned work will explore this with carers of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare countries' health care needs by segmenting populations into a set of needs-based health states.Data sourcesWe used seven waves of the Survey of Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) panel survey data.Study designWe developed the Cross-Country Simple Segmentation Tool (CCSST), a validated clinician-administered instrument for categorizing older individuals by distinct, homogeneous health and related social service needs. Using clinical indicators, self-reported physician diagnosis of chronic disease, and performance-based tests conducted during the survey interview, individuals were assigned to 1-5 global impressions (GI) segments and assessed for having any of the four identifiable complicating factors (CFs). We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of mortality by segment. First, we show the segmentation cross-sectionally to assess cross-country differences in the fraction of individuals with different levels of medical needs. Second, we compare the differences in the rate at which individuals transition between those levels and death.Data collection/extraction methodsWe segmented 270,208 observations (from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland) from 96,396 individuals into GI and CF categories.Principal findingsThe CCSST is a valid tool for segmenting populations into needs-based states, showing Switzerland with the lowest fraction of individuals in high medical needs segments, followed by Denmark and Sweden, and Poland with the highest fraction, followed by Italy and Israel. Comparing hazard ratios of transitioning between health states may help identify country-specific areas for analysis of ecological and cultural risk factors.ConclusionsThe CCSST is an innovative tool for aggregate cross-country comparisons of both health needs and transitions between them. A cross-country comparison gives policy makers an effective means of comparing national health system performance and provides targeted guidance on how to identify strategies for curbing the rise of high-need, high-cost patients.

Project description:BackgroundAs populations age with increasingly complex chronic conditions, segmenting populations into clinically meaningful categories of healthcare and related service needs can provide healthcare planners with crucial information to optimally meet needs. However, while conventional approaches typically involve electronic medical records (EMRs), such records do not always capture information reliably or accurately.ObjectiveWe describe the inter-rater reliability and predictive validity of a clinician-administered tool, the Simple Segmentation Tool (SST) for categorizing older individuals into one of six Global Impression (GI) segments and eight complicating factors (CFs) indicative of healthcare and related social needs.DesignObservational study ( ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02663037).ParticipantsPatients aged 55 years and above.Main measuresEmergency department (ED) subjects (between May and June 2016) had baseline SST assessment by two physicians and a nurse concurrently seeing the same individual. General medical (GM) ward subjects (February 2017) had a SST assessment by their principal physician. Adverse events (ED visits, hospitalizations, and mortality over 90 days from baseline) were determined by a blinded reviewer. Inter-rater reliability was measured using Cohen's kappa. Predictive validity was evaluated using Cox hazard ratios based on time to first adverse event.Key resultsCohen's kappa between physician-physician, service physician-nurse, and physician-nurse pairs for GI were 0.60, 0.71, and 0.68, respectively. Cox analyses demonstrated significant predictive validity of GI and CFs for adverse outcomes.ConclusionsWith modest training, clinicians can complete a brief instrument to segment their patient into clinically meaningful categories of healthcare and related service needs. This approach can complement and overcome current limitations of EMR-based instruments, particularly with respect to whole-patient care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02663037.

Project description:IntroductionAdvanced oral cancer and its ensuing treatment engenders significant morbidity and mortality. Patients are often elderly with significant comorbidities. Toxicities associated with surgical resection can be devastating and they are often highlighted by patients as impactful. Given the potential for suboptimal oncological and functional outcomes in this vulnerable patient population, promotion and performance of shared decision making (SDM) is crucial.Decision aids (DAs) are useful instruments for facilitating the SDM process by presenting patients with up-to-date evidence regarding risks, benefits and the possible postoperative course. Importantly, DAs also help elicit and clarify patient values and preferences. The use of DAs in cancer treatment has been shown to reduce decisional conflict and increase SDM. No DAs for oral cavity cancer have yet been developed.This study endeavours to answer the question: Is there a patient or surgeon driven need for development and implementation of a DA for adult patients considering major surgery for oral cancer?Methods and analysisThis study is the first step in a multiphase investigation of SDM during major head and neck surgery. It is a multi-institutional convergent parallel mixed-methods needs assessment study. Patients and surgeon dyads will be recruited to complete questionnaires related to their perception of the SDM process (nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire, SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc) and to take part in semistructured interviews. Patients will also complete questionnaires examining decisional self-efficacy (Ottawa Decision Self-Efficacy Scale) and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Questionnaires will be completed at time of recruitment and will be used to assess the current level of SDM, self-efficacy and conflict in this setting. Thematic analysis will be used to analyse transcripts of interviews. Quantitative and qualitative components of the study will be integrated through triangulation, with matrix developed to promote visualisation of the data.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the research ethics boards of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (Halifax, Nova Scotia) and the University Health Network (Toronto, Ontario). Dissemination to clinicians will be through traditional approaches and creation of a head and neck cancer SDM website. Dissemination to patients will include a section within the website, patient advocacy groups and postings within clinical environments.

Project description:BackgroundIn Saskatchewan, Canada, Indigenous cancer care services at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels are intended to improve quality care but can result in a complex, fragmented, and multi-jurisdictional health care system. A multi-phase needs assessment project was initiated to document Indigenous cancer care needs. Guided by Indigenous patient partners, clinicians, academics, and policy makers, the present study reflects a needs assessment of Indigenous cancer supports from the perspectives of cancer care service providers.MethodsQualitative data were collected through three focus groups with 20 service providers for cancer patients and their families at three Saskatchewan cities. Participants included chemotherapy and radiation nurses, social workers, a patient navigator, dieticians, and practicum students. A semi-structured interview guide was used to conduct the sessions to allow for freedom of responses. Data were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsService providers' perspectives were categorized into five themes: 1) addressing travel-related issues, 2) logistical challenges, 3) improvements to Indigenous-specific health care supports, 4) cultural sensitivity in health care, and 5) consistency in care. Supports provided differed for the two Indigenous groups, First Nations and Métis. Service providers made recommendations regarding how needs could be met. They saw language translation providers and Elder supports as important. Recommendations for improving travel were for medical taxis to include breaks so that passengers may alleviate any uncomfortable side effects of their cancer treatment. Further, Indigenous-specific accommodations were recommended for those requiring medical travel. These recommendations aligned with supports that are available in four other Canadian provinces.ConclusionsThese results identified gaps in supports and outlined recommendations to address barriers to cancer care from the perspectives of service providers. These recommendations may inform evidence-based health system interventions for Indigenous cancer patients and ultimately aim to improve cancer care services, quality of life, and health outcomes of Indigenous patients throughout their cancer journey.