Dataset Information

Classifying information-sharing methods.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sparse relative effectiveness evidence is a frequent problem in Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Where evidence directly pertaining to the decision problem is sparse, it may be feasible to expand the evidence-base to include studies that relate to the decision problem only indirectly: for instance, when there is no evidence on a comparator, evidence on other treatments of the same molecular class could be used; similarly, a decision on children may borrow-strength from evidence on adults. Usually, in HTA, such indirect evidence is either included by ignoring any differences ('lumping') or not included at all ('splitting'). However, a range of more sophisticated methods exists, primarily in the biostatistics literature. The objective of this study is to identify and classify the breadth of the available information-sharing methods.

Methods

Forwards and backwards citation-mining techniques were used on a set of seminal papers on the topic of information-sharing. Papers were included if they specified (network) meta-analytic methods for combining information from distinct populations, interventions, outcomes or study-designs.

Results

Overall, 89 papers were included. A plethora of evidence synthesis methods have been used for information-sharing. Most papers (n=79) described methods that shared information on relative treatment effects. Amongst these, there was a strong emphasis on methods for information-sharing across multiple outcomes (n=42) and treatments (n=25), with fewer papers focusing on study-designs (n=23) or populations (n=8). We categorise and discuss the methods under four 'core' relationships of information-sharing: functional, exchangeability-based, prior-based and multivariate relationships, and explain the assumptions made within each of these core approaches.

Conclusions

This study highlights the range of information-sharing methods available. These methods often impose more moderate assumptions than lumping or splitting. Hence, the degree of information-sharing that they impose could potentially be considered more appropriate. Our identification of four 'core' methods of information-sharing allows for an improved understanding of the assumptions underpinning the different methods. Further research is required to understand how the methods differ in terms of the strength of sharing they impose and the implications of this for health care decisions.

SUBMITTER: Nikolaidis GF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8140466 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Poor quality communication between hospital doctors and GPs at the time of hospital discharge is associated with adverse patient outcomes. This may be more marked after an episode of critical illness, the complications of which can persist long after hospital discharge. AIMS:1. to evaluate information sharing between ICU staff and GPs after a critical illness 2. to identify factors influencing the flow and utilisation of this information. METHODS:Parallel mixed methods observational study in an Irish setting, with equal emphasis on quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive analysis was performed on quantitative data derived from GP and ICU consultant questionnaires. Qualitative data came from semi-structured interviews with GPs and consultants, and were analysed using directed content analysis. Mixing of data occurred at the stage of interpretation. RESULTS:GPs rarely received information about an episode of critical illness directly from ICU staff, with most coming from patients and relatives. Information received from hospital sources was frequently brief and incomplete. Common communication barriers reported by consultants were insufficient time, low perceived importance and difficulty establishing GP contact. When provided information, GPs seldom actioned specific interventions, citing insufficient guidance in hospital correspondence and poor knowledge about critical illness complications and their management. A majority of all respondents thought that improved information sharing would benefit patients. Cultural influences on practice were identified in qualitative data. A priori qualitative themes were: (1) perceived benefits of information sharing, (2) factors influencing current practice and (3) strategies for optimal information sharing. Emergent themes were: (4) the central role of the GP in patient care, (5) the concept of the "whole patient journey" and (6) a culture of expectation around a GP's knowledge of hospital care. CONCLUSIONS:Practical and cultural factors contribute to suboptimal information sharing between ICU and primary care doctors around an episode of critical illness in ICU. We propose a three-milestone strategy to improve the flow and utilisation of information when patients are admitted, discharged or die within the ICU.

Project description:Coordination of services used by palliative care patients across care contexts is essential in providing patient centred care. In Lothian, Edinburgh, a baseline audit in 2008 of patients known to all four specialist palliative care teams revealed only 49% had information available to out of hours (OOH) general practitioners (GPs). This highlighted the poor handover and sharing of information, which are essential for providing quality care for palliative patients in accordance with their wishes, and for reducing inappropriate hospital admissions. A number of quality improvement measures have been introduced, some nationally in Scotland, such as the roll out of Electronic Palliative Care Summaries (ePCS) - an electronic register containing up to date information including patient wishes and latest treatment decisions. In addition there have been changes to the GP Quality Outcomes Framework encouraging the use of electronic records. Locally, at Marie Curie Hospice, drivers were implemented including hosting GP education evenings promoting ePCS use, alteration of hospice discharge letter format to complement ePCS completion, in addition to offering specialist nurse support and presence at GP practice palliative care register meetings. A re-audit in 2012 revealed that 75% of specialist palliative care patients had electronic information available to OOH services, and in 2013, 71% of patients. This represents a significant improvement in electronic information sharing across care contexts. Building on the progress of ePCS, a new Electronic Key Information Summary is currently being rolled out across Scotland. This quality improvement report reflects on the positive measures taken to address the important clinical need of effective electronic handover for specialist palliative care patients in Lothian. Furthermore, it highlights the ongoing requirement to continue to improve the quality and availability of electronically shared information for every patient known to palliative care services across care contexts.

Project description:Pediatric mild traumatic brain injury (pmTBI) has received increased public scrutiny over the past decade, especially regarding children who experience persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS). However, several methods for defining PPCS exist in clinical and scientific literature, and even healthy children frequently exhibit non-specific, concussive-like symptoms. Inter-method agreement (six PPCS methods), observed misclassification rates, and other psychometric properties were examined in large cohorts of consecutively recruited adolescent patients with pmTBI (n = 162) 1 week and 4 months post-injury and in age/sex-matched healthy controls (HC; n = 117) at equivalent time intervals. Six published PPCS methods were stratified into Simple Change (e.g., International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision [ICD-10]) and Standardized Change (e.g., reliable change indices) algorithms. Among HC, test-retest reliability was fair to good across the 4-month assessment window, with evidence of bias (i.e., higher symptom ratings) during retrospective relative to other assessments. Misclassification rates among HC were higher (>30%) for Simple Change algorithms, with poor inter-rater reliability of symptom burden across HC and their parents. A 49% spread existed in terms of the proportion of pmTBI patients "diagnosed" with PPCS at 4 months, with superior inter-method agreement among standardized change algorithms. In conclusion, the self-reporting of symptom burden is only modestly reliable in typically developing adolescents over a 4-month period, with additional evidence for systematic bias in both adolescent and parental ratings. Significant variation existed for identifying pmTBI patients who had "recovered" (i.e., those who did not meet individual criteria for PPCS) from concussion across the six definitions, representing a considerable challenge for estimating the true incidence rate of PPCS in published literature. Although relatively straightforward to obtain, current findings question the utility of the most commonly used Simple Change scores for diagnosis of PPCS in clinical settings.