Dataset Information

Patient involvement in developing a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening in primary care within the randomized controlled trial GET.FEEDBACK.GP.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly required in mental health services research. To empower patients to actively address depression, the GET.FEEDBACK.GP study evaluates a patient-targeted feedback intervention after depression screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9).

Objective

To refine the patient-targeted feedback from a previous study within a participatory research team (PRT) by conducting workshops to investigate patients' needs and preferences for feedback. To evaluate the process and outcome of PPI.

Design

Patient and public involvement was carried out on the levels of collaboration and consultation. A PRT of patient partners and researchers planned and conducted three workshops with patients. Patients' needs were investigated using a focus group. Participants prioritized needs, discussed feedback drafts and evaluated two drafts using cognitive debriefings. Researchers of the PRT communicated the results at project level. PPI was evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tools (PPEET).

Setting and participants

A purposeful sampling of N = 12 patients with experiences of depression participated in at least one workshop.

Results

Relevant content-related needs about feedback (eg no distinction between severe and moderate symptoms), recommendations for action and patient-relevant information were considered. Needs for comprehensible, valuing, nonstigmatizing language and design elements (eg dimensional bar) were implemented. Workshops and PRT were positively evaluated.

Discussion and conclusions

Patient and public involvement influenced the content, wording and design of the feedback. Strengths include two levels of PPI, methodical diversity and purposeful sampling. Limitations include the lack of inclusion of patients who are unaware of their depression. The evaluated PPI concept can be useful for future studies.

SUBMITTER: Seeralan T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137500 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionApproximately one out of six patients in primary care suffers from depression, which often remains undetected. Evidence regarding the efficacy of depression screening in primary care, however, is inconsistent. A previous single-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) in cardiac patients, the DEPSCREEN-INFO trial, provided the first evidence that written feedback to patients following a positive depression screening reduces depression severity and leads to more comprehensive patient engagement in mental healthcare. To amplify these effects, the feedback should be tailored according to patients' needs and preferences. The GET.FEEDBACK.GP RCT will test the efficacy of this patient-targeted feedback intervention in primary care.Methods and analysisThe multicentre three-arm GET.FEEDBACK.GP RCT aims to recruit a total of 1074 primary care patients from North, East and South Germany. Patients will be screened for depression using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). In the case of a positive depression screening result (PHQ-9 score ≥10), the participant will be randomised into one of three groups to either receive (a) patient-targeted and general practitioner (GP)-targeted feedback regarding the depression screening results, (b) only GP-targeted feedback or (c) no feedback. Patients will be followed over a period of 12 months. The primary outcome is depression severity (PHQ-9) 6 months after screening. Secondary outcomes include patient engagement in mental healthcare, professional depression care and cost-effectiveness. According to a statistical analysis plan, the primary endpoint of all randomised patients will be analysed regarding the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe Ethics Committee of the Hamburg Medical Association approved the study. A clinical trial company will ensure data safety, monitoring and supervision. The multicentre GET.FEEDBACK.GP RCT is the first trial in primary care that tests the efficacy of a patient-targeted feedback intervention as an adjunct to depression screening. Its results have the potential to influence future depression guidelines and will be disseminated in scientific as well as patient-friendly language.Trial registration numberNCT03988985.

Project description:PurposeThe first aim of this qualitative study was to identify general practitioners' (GPs') views on depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback in primary care. The second aim was to determine the needs and preferences of GPs with respect to GP-targeted feedback to enhance the efficacy of depression screening.MethodsA semistructured qualitative interview was conducted with officially registered GPs in Hamburg (Germany). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An inductive approach was used to code the transcripts.ResultsNine GPs (27 to 70 years; 5 male) from Hamburg, Germany, participated. Regarding depression screening combined with GP-targeted feedback, five thematic groups were identified: application of screening; screening and patient-physician relationships; GPs' attitudes towards screening; benefits and concerns related to screening; and GPs' needs and preferences regarding feedback. While the negative aspects of screening can be described in rather general terms (e.g., screening determines the mental health competence, screening threatens the doctor-patient relationship, revealing questions harm the patients), its advantages were very specific (e.g., promoting the identification of undetected cases, relief of the daily workload, wider communication channel to reach more patients). Standardized GP-targeted feedback of the screening results was perceived as helpful and purposeful. GPs preferred feedback materials that eased their clinical workload (e.g., short text with visuals, pictures, or images).ConclusionAddressing GPs' needs is essential when implementing depression screening tools in clinical practice. To overcome prejudices and enhance the efficacy of screening, further education for GPs on the purpose and application on depression screening may be needed. Standardized GP-targeted feedback in combination with depression screening could be the missing link to improve the detection of depression in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundInterest is growing in interventions to address social needs in clinical settings. However, little is known about patients' perceptions and experiences with these interventions.ObjectiveTo evaluate patients' experiences and patient-reported outcomes of a primary care-based intervention to help patients connect with community resources using trained volunteer advocates.DesignQualitative telephone interviews with patients who had worked with the volunteer advocates. Sample and recruitment targets were equally distributed between patients who had at least one reported success in meeting an identified need and those who had no reported needs met, based on the database used to document patient encounters.ParticipantsOne hundred two patients.InterventionsPatients at the study clinic were periodically screened for social needs. If needs were identified, they were referred to a trained volunteer advocate who further assessed their needs, provided them with resource referrals, and followed up with them on whether their need was met.ApproachThematic analysis was used to code the data.Key resultsInterviewed patients appreciated the services offered, especially the follow-up. Patients' ability to access the resource to which they were referred was enhanced by assistance with filling out forms, calling community resources, and other types of navigation. Patients also reported that interacting with the advocates made them feel listened to and cared for, which they perceived as noteworthy in their lives.ConclusionsThis patient-reported information provides key insights into a human-centered intervention in a clinical environment. Our findings highlight what works in clinical interventions addressing social needs and provide outcomes that are difficult to measure using existing quantitative metrics. Patients experienced the intervention as a therapeutic relationship/working alliance, a type of care that correlates with positive outcomes such as treatment adherence and quality of life. These insights will help design more patient-centered approaches to providing holistic patient care.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the enormous potential for adverse events in primary healthcare (PHC), the knowledge about how to improve patient safety in this context is still sparse. We describe the methods for the development and evaluation of an intervention targeted at PHC professionals to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres.Methods and analysisThe intervention will consist in using the patient reported experiences and outcomes of safety in primary care (PREOS-PC) survey to gather patient-reported experiences and outcomes concerning the safety of the healthcare patients receive in their PHC centres, and feed that information back to the PHC professionals to help them identify opportunities for safer healthcare provision. The study will involve three stages. Stage 1 (developing the intervention) will involve: (i) qualitative study with 40 PHC providers to optimise the acceptability and perceived utility of the proposed intervention; (ii) Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the PREOS-PC survey; (iii) developing the intervention components; and (iv) developing an online tool to electronically administrate PREOS-PC and automatically generate feedback reports to PHC centres. Stage 2 (piloting the intervention) will involve a 3-month feasibility (one group pre-post) study in 10 PHC centres (500 patients, 260 providers). Stage 3 (evaluating the intervention) will involve: (i) a 12-month, two-arm, two-level cluster randomised controlled trial (1248 PHC professionals within 48 PHC centres; with randomisation at the centre level in a 1:1 ratio) to evaluate the impact of the intervention on patient safety culture (primary outcome), patient-reported safety experiences and outcomes (using the PREOS-PC survey), and avoidable hospitalisations; (ii) qualitative study with 20 PHC providers to evaluate the acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention and identify implementation barriers.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Balearic Islands (CEI IB: 3686/18) with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03837912; pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is rarely screened for among People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (PLHIV) although it is 2 to 3 times more prevalent among PLHIV than in the general population. In instances where depression is screened for using screening tools, it usually follows noticing depression risk factors. This practice of selectively screening for depression could be leaving some cases of depression unattended to. On the other hand, subjecting every client to screening tools (non-selective screening) offers every patient an opportunity to be managed for depression. However, this could require additional resources as compared to selective screening. We present and discuss results on whether non-selective and selective screening strategies differ in depression case detection, and in addition, we also present perceptions of the stake holders on the two screening strategies.MethodsThe study was conducted in Princess Diana Memorial Health Centre IV HIV clinic using a randomized controlled trial with a qualitative component. To determine whether there was a difference in depression case detection, consecutively sampled participants were randomly allocated to either non-selective or selective screening strategy. Participants allocated to selective screening were screened for depression using the patient health questionnaire (s) (PHQs) if they were at "crisis points". While those allocated to non-selective screening were screened regardless of whether the "crisis points" were noticed or not. The PHQ-2 and PHQ-9 were used in sequence. 326 PLHIV participated in the study. Outcomes of the MINI evaluation were analyzed for those with PHQ-9 scores of 10 or more to confirm major depressive disorder (MDD). Data was analyzed using the two sample Z-test for proportions with Stata 2013 software. To explore the perceptions of the stake holders, key informant interviews were performed with six stakeholders that experienced the study.ResultsCases of depression (PHQ-9 score ≥ 5) were more likely to be detected by the non-selective screening strategy 30.2% (49/162) compared to the selective screening strategy 19.5% (32/164) (difference in proportions 0.107, 95% confidence interval 0.014-0.200, Cohen's h = 0.25, P = 0.03). The stake holders thought it was important to screen for depression among PLHIV with preference to non-selective screening strategy.ConclusionEvidence from this data suggests that more cases of depression (PHQ-9 score ≥ 5) are likely to be detected with non-selective screening as opposed to selective screening.Trial registrationPACTR201802003141213 (name: comparison of routine versus selective screening for depression strategies among PLHIV attending Princess Diana Memorial Health Centre iv Soroti).

Project description:BackgroundHealth research in the UK requires patients, those with lived experience and members of the public to be involved in designing and shaping research: many of them have reported that their comments and suggestions are not always acknowledged, and they do not know if their input has been used or is useful. The benefits of feedback from researchers not only create motivation for further involvement but aids learning and development, as well as recording impact. The aims of this study were to improve the feedback experience of Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) contributors. Co-produced feedback processes were designed and implemented in order to change feedback from researchers to PPI contributors in six PPI groups in England.MethodsAn explanatory mixed methods sequential study design was utilised with a comparative questionnaire survey (administered 20 months apart), interviews and a focus group with PPI leads, researchers and PPI contributors. Patient and Public Involvement contributors were involved from initial idea, study design, data analysis through to dissemination.ResultsCo-designed feedback processes were introduced in five of the six PPI groups and there was an overall increase in the frequency of feedback over the period studied. The enablers and barriers to implementing feedback processes were identified, which included the importance of wider institutional level support. PPI leads need to have dedicated time and acknowledge feedback as part of their role. The importance of individual feedback processes designed by, and for each PPI group, rather than a generic one, was also identified as key to successful implementation.ConclusionThe role of the PPI lead is an important facilitator in improving feedback but can easily be overlooked and has been described as invisible. PPI leads can perform an essential bridging role between researchers and members of the public. This study has shown that PPI feedback processes can be implemented if they are part of embedded PPI with explicit expectations, facilitated by a dedicated PPI lead role with sufficient support and resources. The findings have implications beyond this particular study, particularly for those involved in undertaking and funding health and social care research.