Dataset Information

Evaluating pictorial support in person-centred care for children (PicPecc): a protocol for a crossover design study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

This study protocol outlines the evaluation of the pictorial support in person-centred care for children (PicPecc). PicPecc is a digital tool used by children aged 5-17 years to self-report symptoms of acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, who undergo high-dose methotrexate treatments. The design of the digital platform follows the principles of universal design using pictorial support to provide accessibility for all children regardless of communication or language challenges and thus facilitating international comparison.

Methods and analysis

Both effect and process evaluations will be conducted. A crossover design will be used to measure the effect/outcome, and a mixed-methods design will be used to measure the process/implementation. The primary outcome in the effect evaluation will be self-reported distress. Secondary outcomes will be stress levels monitored via neuropeptides, neurosteroids and peripheral steroids indicated in plasma blood samples; frequency of in-app estimation of high levels of distress by the children; children's use of analgesic medicine and person centeredness evaluated via the questionnaire Visual CARE Measure. For the process evaluation, qualitative interviews will be carried out with children with cancer, their legal guardians and case-related healthcare professionals. These interviews will address experiences with PicPecc in terms of feasibility and frequency of use from the child's perspective and value to the caseworker. Interview transcripts will be analysed using an interpretive description methodology.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval was obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (reference 2019-02392; 2020-02601; 2020-06226). Children, legal guardians, healthcare professionals, policymaking and research stakeholders will be involved in all stages of the research process according to Medical Research Council's guidelines. Research findings will be presented at international cancer and paediatric conferences and published in scientific journals.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04433650.

SUBMITTER: Nilsson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8098982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.MethodsWe performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.ResultsWe included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.ConclusionThis review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.Patient/public contributionFollowing this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Project description:BackgroundCare transitions following stroke should be bridged with collaboration between hospital staff and home rehabilitation teams since well-coordinated transitions can reduce death and disability following a stroke. However, health services are delivered within organisational structures, rather than being based on patients' needs. The aim of this study protocol is to assess the feasibility, operationalised here as fidelity and acceptability, of a codesigned care transition support for people with stroke.MethodsThis study protocol describes the evaluation of a feasibility study using a non-randomised controlled design. The codesigned care transition support includes patient information using videos, leaflets and teach back; what-matters-to me dialogue; a coordinated rehabilitation plan; bridged e-meeting; and a message system for cross-organisational collaboration. Patients with stroke, first time or recurrent, who are to be discharged home from hospital and referred to a rehabilitation team in primary healthcare for continued rehabilitation in the home will be included. One week after stroke, data will be collected on the primary outcome, namely satisfaction with the care transition support, and on the secondary outcome, namely health literacy and medication adherence. Data on use of healthcare will be obtained from a register of healthcare contacts. The outcomes of patients and significant others will be compared with matched controls from other geriatric stroke and acute stroke units, and with matched historic controls from a previous dataset at the intervention and control units. Data on acceptability and fidelity will be assessed through interviews and observations at the intervention units.Ethics and disseminationEthical approvals have been obtained from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The results will be published open-access in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination also includes presentation at national and international conferences.DiscussionThe care transition support addresses a poorly functioning part of care trajectories in current healthcare. The development of this codesigned care transition support has involved people with stroke, significant other, and healthcare professionals. Such involvement has the potential to better identify and reconceptualise problems, and incorporate user experiences.Trial registration numberhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov id: NCT02925871. Date of registration 6 October 2016.Protocol version1.

Project description:IntroductionWomen are disproportionately impacted by osteoarthritis (OA) but less likely than men to access early diagnosis and management, or experience OA care tailored through person-centred approaches to their needs and preferences, particularly racialized women. One way to support clinicians in optimizing OA care is through clinical guidelines. We aimed to examine the content of OA guidelines for guidance on providing equitable, person-centred care to disadvantaged groups including women.MethodsWe searched indexed databases and websites for English-language OA-relevant guidelines published in 2000 or later by non-profit organizations. We used manifest content analysis to extract data, and summary statistics and text to describe guideline characteristics, person-centred care (PCC) using a six-domain PCC framework, OA prevalence or barriers by intersectional factors, and strategies to improve equitable access to OA care.ResultsWe included 36 OA guidelines published from 2003 to 2021 in 8 regions or countries. Few (39%) development panels included patients. While most (81%) guidelines included at least one PCC domain, guidance was often brief or vague, few addressed exchange information, respond to emotions and manage uncertainty, and none referred to fostering a healing relationship. Few (39%) guidelines acknowledged or described greater prevalence of OA among particular groups; only 3 (8%) noted that socioeconomic status was a barrier to OA care, and only 2 (6%) offered guidance to clinicians on how to improve equitable access to OA care: assess acceptability, availability, accessibility, and affordability of self-management interventions; and employ risk assessment tools to identify patients without means to cope well at home after surgery.ConclusionsThis study revealed that OA guidelines do not support clinicians in caring for diverse persons with OA who face disadvantages due to intersectional factors that influence access to and quality of care. Developers could strengthen OA guidelines by incorporating guidance for PCC and for equity that could be drawn from existing frameworks and tools, and by including diverse persons with OA on guideline development panels. Future research is needed to identify multi-level (patient, clinician, system) strategies that could be implemented via guidelines or in other ways to improve equitable, person-centred OA care.Patient or public contributionThis study was informed by a team of researchers, collaborators, and thirteen diverse women with lived experience, who contributed to planning, and data collection, analysis and interpretation by reviewing study materials and providing verbal (during meetings) and written (via email) feedback.

Project description:BackgroundLittle prior research focused on person-centred care and support (PCCS) for dementia in home, community or outpatient care. We aimed to describe what constitutes PCCS, how to implement it, and considerations for women who comprise the majority of affected persons (with dementia, carers).MethodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching multiple databases from 2000 inclusive to June 7, 2020. We extracted data on study characteristics and PCCS approaches, evaluation, determinants or the impact of strategies to implement PCCS. We used summary statistics to report data and interpreted findings with an existing person-centred care framework.ResultsWe included 22 studies with qualitative (55%) or quantitative/multiple methods design (45%) involving affected persons (50%), or healthcare workers (50%). Studies varied in how PCCS was conceptualized; 59% cited a PCC definition or framework. Affected persons and healthcare workers largely agreed on what constitutes PCCS (e.g. foster partnership, promote autonomy, support carers). In 4 studies that evaluated care, barriers of PCCS were reported at the affected person (e.g. family conflict), healthcare worker (e.g. lack of knowledge) and organizational (e.g. resource constraints) levels. Studies that evaluated strategies to implement PCCS approaches were largely targeted to healthcare workers, and showed that in-person inter-professional educational meetings yielded both perceived (e.g. improved engagement of affected persons) and observed (e.g. use of PCCS approaches) beneficial outcomes. Few studies reported results by gender or other intersectional factors, and none revealed if or how to tailor PCCS for women. This synthesis confirmed and elaborated the PCC framework, resulting in a Framework of PCCS for Dementia.ConclusionDespite the paucity of research on PCCS for dementia, synthesis of knowledge from diverse studies into a Framework provides interim guidance for those planning or evaluating dementia services in outpatient, home or community settings. Further research is needed to elaborate the Framework, evaluate PCCS for dementia, explore determinants, and develop strategies to implement and scale-up PCCS approaches. Such studies should explore how to tailor PCCS needs and preferences based on input from persons with dementia, and by sex/gender and other intersectional factors such as ethnicity or culture.

Project description:Fragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable 'blue print' mean that services are 'experimenting' with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings.Two centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations.Extensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.