Dataset Information

Digital Additional Risk Minimization Measures: An Exploratory Study Using Qualitative Feedback from Healthcare Professionals and Patients Across Six Countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Additional risk minimization measures (aRMMs) are required for some pharmaceutical products when routine risk minimization measures (i.e., product labeling) are deemed insufficient. Measures often include educational materials, such as paper brochures, leaflets, and/or alert cards that provide information to healthcare professionals and patients on the key risks associated with a product and risk minimization actions to take should particular signs or symptoms arise. Paper-based educational aRMMs have several limitations. They do not present information in an interactive manner, and their update and distribution can be costly and often complex. Measuring how effective they are in achieving their aims can also be difficult. Digital methods offer design and delivery flexibility, easier updating processes, opportunities to increase engagement with important information, as well possibilities for tracking distribution, receipt, and potentially understanding of the materials. Pharmaceutical companies have started to look to digital methods as an option for educational aRMMs, alongside paper materials.

Objectives

Research into healthcare professionals and patient needs and preferences, as well as the general acceptability of digital educational options is needed to establish a baseline. This was an exploratory study intended to provide initial insights on the acceptability of digital aRMMs and to inform future research directions.

Methods

Digital concepts for educational aRMMs, one for healthcare professionals and one for patients, were evaluated with 30 healthcare professionals and 20 patients in six countries through 1:1 Zoom calls, with responses recorded in a structured Qualtrics-based survey. Criteria for selecting the six countries included local familiarity with aRMMs as well as interest in and capability to deliver a potential digital aRMM program by the sponsoring company's affiliate teams. Of the healthcare professionals, 19 were rheumatologists and 11 were dermatologists. 16 patients had rheumatologic (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis) conditions and four had atopic dermatitis. These conditions were chosen as they aligned to potential therapeutic areas where the sponsoring company may have the opportunity to use a digital aRMM. Participants were given an overview of the concept as well as the opportunity to interact with it directly via the "control screen" function in Zoom before questions were posed.

Results

The results demonstrated that the majority of healthcare professionals (87%) and all patients interviewed would prefer website-based or app-based delivery, respectively, of aRMM information instead of, or alongside traditional paper-based approaches, with only 13% of healthcare professionals and no patients expressing a preference for paper-only communication.

Conclusions

Given new options offered by digital technology, its widespread use in many fields, and the importance of patient safety as a topic, there is an imperative for pharmaceutical companies and regulators to work together to establish a way forward for the use of digital options for aRMMs. This study is limited in its generalizability but offers some ideas for future research directions.

SUBMITTER: Da Silva-Tillmann B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744394 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA Guide for Healthcare Professionals (HCP Guide) and patient alert card (PAC) for atezolizumab as additional risk minimization measures for physicians were distributed to raise awareness and help in the detection and management of immune-related adverse drug reactions.ObjectivesThe main objective of this study was to assess the receipt, knowledge, and behaviors of physicians regarding the atezolizumab HCP Guide and PAC.MethodsA multi-country, one-wave, observational, cross-sectional, web-based, self-reported physician survey was conducted to assess the level of knowledge of key messages related to immune-related adverse drug reactions summarized in the atezolizumab HCP Guide and PAC among physicians (oncologists, pulmonologists, and urologists) prescribing atezolizumab in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Responses regarding the receipt, understanding and use of the materials, and knowledge and behavior related to the HCP Guide and PAC are presented as percentages and continuous scores scaled out of 100 points, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsAmong 313 physicians (255 oncologists, 30 pulmonologists, and 28 urologists), 77.4% received the HCP Guide and 74.2% the PAC. The HCP Guide was read by 71.3% of the 267 physicians who received the materials, and the mean usage score was 69.5 (95% CI 66.0-72.9), and 57.1% of physicians had scores ≥ 70. The HCP Guide was completely understood by 85.4% of physicians who had read it. Mean knowledge scores were 63.9 (95% CI 62.1-65.7) and 39.4% of physicians had correct knowledge scores ≥ 70. Mean knowledge scores were 66.8 (95% CI 64.9-68.7) for receipt of both the HCP Guide and PAC, 59.4 (95% CI 55.5-63.4) for one of the materials, and 60.8 (95% CI 55.4-66.2) for having received none of the materials. Mean behavior scores were 78.9 (95% CI 76.8-81.0), and 74.8% of physicians had behavior scores ≥ 70. The mean behavior score was 79.0 (95% CI 76.5-81.5) for those who received both the HCP Guide and PAC, 76.9 (95% CI 72.2-81.5) for receipt of one of the materials, and 81.5 (95% CI 75.0-88.0) for those who received none of the materials.ConclusionsThe study assessed the effectiveness of the atezolizumab additional risk minimization educational materials among physicians in six European countries, using process indicators. The educational materials reached over 70% of target physicians, 57.1% of whom reported using them. Knowledge and behavior related to immune-related adverse drug reactions for atezolizumab were no better in those who received the additional risk minimization educational materials. The results support the safe use of atezolizumab by these physician groups and contributed to the European Medicines Agency permitting removal of the HCP Guide.

Project description:By assessing patient safety culture, healthcare providers can identify areas for improvement in patient safety culture. To achieve this, these assessment outcomes have to be relevant and presented clearly. The aim of our study was to explore healthcare professionals' views on the feedback of a patient safety culture assessment.Twenty four hospitals participated in a patient safety culture assessment in 2012. Hospital departments received feedback in a report and on a website. In a survey, we evaluated healthcare professionals' views on this feedback and the effect of additional information about patient safety culture improvement strategies on the appraisal of the feedback. 20 hospitals participated in part I (evaluation of the report), 13 hospitals participated in part II (evaluation of the website).Healthcare professionals (e.g. members of staff and department heads/managers) rated the feedback in the report and on the website positively (average mean on different aspects?=?7.2 on a scale from 1 to 10). Interpreting results was sometimes difficult, and information was sometimes lacking, like specific recommendations and improvement strategies. The provision of additional general information on patient safety culture improvement strategies resulted only in a higher appraisal of the attractiveness (lay-out) of the report and the understandability of the feedback report. The majority (84 %) of the healthcare professionals agreed or partly agreed that the feedback on patient safety culture stimulated actions to improve patient safety culture. However, a quarter also stated that although the feedback report provided insight into the patient safety culture, they did not know how to improve patient safety culture in their hospital.Healthcare professionals seem to be positive about the feedback on patient safety culture and its effect on stimulating patient safety culture improvement. To optimally tune feedback on patient safety culture towards healthcare professionals, the following might help: 1) pay attention to the understandability of outcomes for its intended users; and 2) create feedback that is tailored towards specific hospital departments.

Project description:Background:E-health technology applications are essential tools of modern information technology that improve quality of healthcare delivery in hospitals of both developed and developing countries. However, despite its positive benefits, studies indicate that the rate of the e-health adoption in some developing countries is either low or underutilized. This is due in part, to barriers such as resistance from healthcare professionals, poor infrastructure, and low technical expertise among others. Objective:The aim of this study is to investigate, identify and analyze the underlying factors that affect healthcare professionals decision to adopt and use e-health technology applications in developing countries, with particular reference to hospitals in Nigeria. Methods:The study used a cross sectional approach in the form of a close-ended questionnaire to collect quantitative data from a sample of 465 healthcare professionals randomly selected from 15 hospitals in Nigeria. We used the modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the dependent variable and external factors as independent variables. The collected data was then analyzed using SPSS statistical analysis such as frequency test, reliability analysis, and correlation coefficient analysis. Results:The results obtained, which correspond with findings from other researches published, indicate that perceived usefulness, belief, willingness, as well as attitude of healthcare professionals have significant influence on their intention to adopt and use the e-health technology applications. Other strategic factors identified include low literacy level and experience in using the e-health technology applications, lack of motivation, poor organizational and management policies. Conclusion:The study contributes to the literature by pinpointing significant areas where findings can positively affect, or be found useful by, healthcare policy decision makers in Nigeria and other developing countries. This can help them understand their areas of priorities and weaknesses when planning for e-health technology adoption and implementation.

Project description:IntroductionResilient healthcare (RHC) is an emerging area of theory and applied research to understand how healthcare organisations cope with the dynamic, variable and demanding environments in which they operate, based on insights from complexity and systems theory. Understanding adaptive capacity has been a focus of RHC studies. Previous studies clearly show why adaptations are necessary and document the successful adaptive actions taken by clinicians. To our knowledge, however, no studies have thus far compared RHC across different teams and countries. There are gaps in the research knowledge related to the multilevel nature of resilience across healthcare systems and the team-based nature of adaptive capacity.This cross-country comparative study therefore aims to add knowledge of how resilience is enabled in diverse healthcare systems by examining adaptive capacity in hospital teams in six countries. The study will identify how team, organisational and national healthcare system factors support or hinder the ability of teams to adapt to variability and change. Findings from this study are anticipated to provide insights to inform the design of RHC systems by considering how macro-level and meso-level structures support adaptive capacity at the micro-level, and to develop guidance for organisations and policymakers.Methods and analysisThe study will employ a multiple comparative case study design of teams nested within hospitals, in turn embedded within six countries: Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The design will be based on the Adaptive Teams Framework placing adaptive teams at the centre of the healthcare system with layers of environmental, organisational and system level factors shaping adaptive capacity. In each of the six countries, a focused mapping of the macro-level features of the healthcare system will be undertaken by using documentary sources and interviews with key informants operating at the macro-level.A sampling framework will be developed to select two hospitals in each country to ensure variability based on size, location and teaching status. Four teams will be selected in each hospital-one each of a structural, hybrid, responsive and coordinating team. A total of eight teams will be studied in each country, creating a total sample of 48 teams. Data collection methods will be observations, interviews and document analysis. Within-case analysis will be conducted according to a standardised template using a combination of deductive and inductive qualitative coding, and cross-case analysis will be conducted drawing on the Qualitative Comparative Analysis framework.Ethics and disseminationThe overall Resilience in Healthcare research programme of which this study is a part has been granted ethical approval by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Ref. No. 8643334 and Ref. No. 478838). Ethical approval will also be sought in each country involved in the study according to their respective regulatory procedures. Country-specific reports of study outcomes will be produced for dissemination online. A collection of case study summaries will be made freely available, translated into multiple languages. Brief policy communications will be produced to inform policymakers and regulators about the study results and to facilitate translation into practice. Academic dissemination will occur through publication in journals specialising in health services research. Findings will be presented at academic, policy and practitioner conferences, including the annual RHC Network meeting and other healthcare quality and safety conferences. Presentations at practitioner and academic conferences will include workshops to translate the findings into practice and influence quality and safety programmes internationally.

Project description:ObjectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals.SettingHealthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level.Data sourcesDatabases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness.ResultsOverall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified.ConclusionWhile a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.