Dataset Information

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Engaging patients and the public in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is believed to contribute significantly to guideline quality, but the advantages of the various co-design strategies have not been empirically compared, making it difficult to choose one strategy over another.

Objective

This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG.

Methods

A single-blind crossover pragmatic study was performed with patients with traumatic brain injury. The patients experimented with 2 alternative methods of producing clinical practice recommendations (ie, a discussion group and a wiki). The participants rated the acceptability of the 2 methods, and feasibility was assessed using indicators, such as the number of participants who completed the 2 methods and the number of support interventions required. Experts, blinded to the method, independently rated the participants' outcome recommendations for clarity, accuracy, appropriateness, and usefulness.

Results

We recruited 20 participants, and 16 completed the study. The acceptability of the 2 methods showed little variation, with qualitative comments expressing a slight preference for the social nature of focus groups. Thus, both methods of involving patients in CPG development appeared feasible, and the experts' opinions of the adapted recommendations were both positive, although the recommendations produced through focus groups were deemed more relevant to support clinical practice.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the acceptability and feasibility of focus groups and wikis to allow patients with traumatic brain injury to participate in clinical practice guideline production. This study contributes to the scientific literature by suggesting that the 2 methods were acceptable, feasible, and produced positive outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138.

SUBMITTER: Lamontagne ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8663436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIt is not known whether there are differences in the quality and recommendations between evidence-based (EB) and consensus-based (CB) guidelines. We used breast cancer guidelines as a case study to assess for these differences.MethodsFive different instruments to evaluate the quality of guidelines were identified by a literature search. We also searched MEDLINE and the Internet to locate 8 breast cancer guidelines. These guidelines were classified in three categories: evidence based, consensus based and consensus based with no explicit consideration of evidence (CB-EB). Each guideline was evaluated by three of the authors using each of the instruments. For each guideline we assessed the agreement among 14 decision points which were selected from the NCCN (National Cancer Comprehensive Network) guidelines algorithm. For each decision point we recorded the level of the quality of the information used to support it. A regression analysis was performed to assess if the percentage of high quality evidence used in the guidelines development was related to the overall quality of the guidelines.ResultsThree guidelines were classified as EB, three as CB-EB and two as CB. The EB guidelines scored better than CB, with the CB-EB scoring in the middle among all instruments for guidelines quality assessment. No major disagreement in recommendations was detected among the guidelines regardless of the method used for development, but the EB guidelines had a better agreement with the benchmark guideline for any decision point. When the source of evidence used to support decision were of high quality, we found a higher level of full agreement among the guidelines' recommendations. Up to 94% of variation in the quality score among guidelines could be explained by the quality of evidence used for guidelines development.ConclusionEB guidelines have a better quality than CB guidelines and CB-EB guidelines. Explicit use of high quality evidence can lead to a better agreement among recommendations. However, no major disagreement among guidelines was noted regardless of the method for their development.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for innovative strategies to improve TB testing uptake and patient retention along the continuum of TB care early-on in treatment without burdening under-resourced health systems. We used a mixed methods approach to develop and pilot test a tuberculosis literacy and counselling intervention at an urban clinic in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, to improve TB testing uptake and retention in tuberculosis care.MethodsWe engaged in discussions with clinic staff to plan and develop the intervention, which was delivered by senior social work students who received one-week training. The intervention included: 1) group health talks with all patients attending the primary clinic; and 2) individual counselling sessions, using motivational interviewing techniques, with newly diagnosed tuberculosis patients. We compared social work students' tuberculosis knowledge, attitudes, and practices before and after their training. We assessed the change in number of tuberculosis diagnostic tests performed after implementation via an interrupted time series analysis with a quasi-Poisson regression model. We compared pre- and post-intervention probabilities of treatment initiation and completion using regression analyses, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. We conducted focus groups with the students, as well as brief surveys and one-on-one interviews with patients, to assess acceptability, feasibility, and implementation.ResultsDuring the study period, 1226 individuals received tuberculosis diagnostic testing and 163 patients started tuberculosis treatment, of whom 84 (51.5%) received individual counselling. The number of diagnostic tuberculosis tests performed increased by 1.36 (95%CI 1.23-1.58) times post-intervention, adjusting for background calendar trend. Probabilities of TB treatment initiation and treatment completion increased by 10.1% (95%CI 1.5-21.3%) and 4.4% (95%CI -7.3-16.0%), respectively. Patients found the counselling sessions alleviated anxiety and increased treatment self-efficacy. Social work students felt the clinic staff were collaborative and highly supportive of the intervention, and that it improved patient engagement and adherence.ConclusionsEngaging clinic staff in the development of an intervention ensures buy-in and collaboration. Education and counselling before and early-on in tuberculosis treatment can increase tuberculosis testing and treatment uptake. Training junior social workers can enable task-shifting in under-resourced settings, while addressing important service gaps in tuberculosis care.

Project description:IntroductionSexual dysfunction is one of the most common side effects of allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for haematological cancers. Problems can persist between 5 and 10 years post-transplant and impact mood, couple intimacy and relationship satisfaction. Few intervention studies, however, target sexual dysfunction in patients post-HSCT. This pilot study aims to examine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a psychosexual intervention for HSCT survivors and their partners post-transplantation.Methods and analysisFifteen allogeneic HSCT survivors and their partners will be recruited. Patients who are more than 3 months post-transplantation will be sent invitation letters describing the couples' psychosexual intervention that will be offered through this study. The intervention will comprise two components: (1) psychosexual education about medical and behavioural treatment options for sexual dysfunction delivered by a haematology nurse consultant; (2) emotionally focused therapy-based relationship education programme for couples delivered by a clinical psychologist (four sessions of 1.5 hours each). Couples who consent to participate will be administered a series of measures assessing mood, relationship satisfaction and sexual dysfunction preintervention and post-intervention, as well as satisfaction with the intervention postintervention. Feasibility of the intervention will be examined via recording enrolment rate, adherence, compliance with completing outcome measures and fidelity of intervention delivery.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal so that in can be accessed by clinicians involved in the care of allogeneic HSCT patients. If this intervention is found to be feasible and acceptable, its impact will be examined in a future randomised controlled trial and subsequently implemented as part of routine care in the allogeneic HSCT population.

Project description:Objectives(A) To measure the extent to which different candidate outcome measures identified high-risk prescribing that is potentially changeable by the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention.(B) To explore the value of reviewing identified high-risk prescribing to clinicians.(C) To optimise the components of the DQIP intervention.DesignMixed method study.SettingGeneral practices in two Scottish Health boards.Participants4 purposively sampled general practices of varying size and socioeconomic deprivation.Outcome measuresPrescribing measures targeting (1) high-risk use of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and antiplatelets; (2) 'Asthma control' and (3) 'Antithrombotics in atrial fibrillation (AF)'.InterventionThe prescribing measures were used to identify patients for review by general practices. The ability of the measures to identify potentially changeable high-risk prescribing was measured as the proportion of patients reviewed where practices identified a need for action. Field notes were recorded from meetings between researchers and staff and key staff participated in semistructured interviews exploring their experience of the piloted intervention processes.ResultsPractices identified a need for action in 68%, 25% and 18% of patients reviewed for prescribing measures (1), (2) and (3), respectively. General practitioners valued being prompted to review patients, and perceived that (1) 'NSAID and antiplatelet' and (2) 'antithrombotics in AF' were the most important to act on. Barriers to initial and ongoing engagement and to sustaining improvements in prescribing were identified.Conclusions'NSAIDs and antiplatelets' measures were selected as the most suitable outcome measures for the DQIP trial, based on evidence of this prescribing being more easily changeable. In response to the barriers identified, the intervention was designed to include a financial incentive, additional ongoing feedback on progress and reprompting review of patients, whose high-risk prescribing was restarted after a decision to stop.Trial registration numberClinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with disabilities often engage in less than the recommended amount of daily physical activity (PA). Classroom-based PA breaks are a favourable method of promoting PA for children. However, evaluations of these programs in specialist schools are scarce, with even less research into their feasibility and acceptability. This may hinder effective implementation and program scalability. This pilot study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a classroom-based PA break program in Australian specialist school classrooms, using the Australian Joy of Moving (AJoM) program.MethodsForty primary/junior classes and their teachers across five specialist schools implemented the AJoM program for eight weeks as the intervention group within a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. A mixed-methods design investigated classroom teachers' (N = 22; 6 males, 16 females) perspectives of the feasibility and acceptability of the program after implementation through semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 7 teachers), qualitative survey responses (n = 18 teachers) and quantitative survey items (n = 19 teachers). Qualitative data were analysed using predominantly deductive thematic analysis. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsClassroom-based PA breaks may be feasible for getting children with disabilities more active at school. However, considerable variation exists in teachers' perception of the AJoM experience. While several teachers indicate that the program content could be pertinent for their class, common divergences in perceptions of feasibility and acceptability appear to relate to the age and developmental level or needs of the students in the class.ConclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of implementing classroom-based PA breaks in specialist schools. However, results demonstrate the importance of (1) allowing a high level of flexibility in the design and implementation of programs to meet the varying needs of class groups and (2) providing a large variety of resources to cater to the heterogeneity of the children.Trial registrationThis trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12619000193178 ) on 11 February 2019.