Dataset Information

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users' educational needs regarding content and learning methods.

Methods

The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.

Results

Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).

Conclusion

Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

SUBMITTER: Sztankay M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8794964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/objectivesRoutine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians' experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine implementation in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a pilot study, using an online survey to elicit the experience, attitudes, training needs and perceptions of barriers and enablers to routine PROMs use of ophthalmic health professionals in the Paediatric Ophthalmology Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. A focus-group was undertaken to discuss survey results and preferences regarding presentation of PROM data. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics, presented alongside complementary qualitative data.ResultsEighteen clinicians in the department completed the survey. Twenty-seven took part in the focus group. Clinicians had limited experience of using PROMs but high confidence in the potential positive impact on communication with patients, monitoring chronic conditions and clinical decision-making. Clinicians identified operational issues (collection and analysis of data) and impact (interpretation and application of data) as the two key areas for consideration. Training and information requirements before implementation were clearly articulated, alongside the benefits of using digital/electronic data capture ahead of consultations to allow efficiency and automated analysis, and presentation in an appropriate visual format alongside clinical data to ensure meaningful use.ConclusionThe findings of this pilot study of ophthalmic clinicians working in a specialist paediatric ophthalmology department, suggest that ophthalmic clinicians recognise the potential benefits of routine PROMs use in clinical practice. Together with existing literature outside ophthalmology relating to overcoming barriers and exploiting enablers to routine implementation, findings may be applicable in planning routine PROM implementation in paediatric ophthalmology.

Project description:BackgroundMedical education is a cornerstone in the global combat against diseases such as diabetes and obesity which together affect more than 500 million humans. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are educational tools for institutions to teach and share their research worldwide. Currently, millions of people have participated in evidence-based MOOCs, however educational and professional benefit(s) for course participants of such initiatives have not been addressed sufficiently. We therefore investigated if participation in a 6 week open online course in the prevention and treatment of diabetes and obesity had any impact on the knowledge, skills, and career of health care professionals contrasting participants from developing countries versus developed countries.Methods52.006 participants signed up and 29.469 participants were active in one of the three sessions (2014-2015) of Diabetes - a Global Challenge. Using an online based questionnaire (nine sections) software (Survey Monkey), email invitations were send out using a Coursera based database to the 29.469 course participants. Responses were analyzed and stratified, according to the United Nations stratification method, by developing and developed countries.Results1.303 (4.4%) of the 29.469 completed the questionnaire. 845 of the 1303 were defined as health care professionals, including medical doctors (34%), researchers (15%), nurses (11%) and medical students (8%). Over 80% of the health care participants report educational benefits, improved knowledge about the prevention and treatment therapies of diabetes and furthermore improved professional life and practice. Over 40% reported that their professional network expanded after course participation. Study participants who did not complete all modules of the course reported similar impact as the ones that completed the entire course(P = 0.9). Participants from developing countries gained more impact on their clinical practice (94%) compared to health care professionals from developed regions (88%) (Mean of differences = 6%, P = 0.03.ConclusionsBased on self-reports from course participants, MOOC based medical education seems promising with respect to providing accessible and free research-based education to health professionals in both developing and developed countries. Course participants from developing countries report more benefits from course participation than their counterparts in the developed world.

Project description:BackgroundClinical Pathways in Oncology can benefit patients using organized interventions to standardize and increase care efficiency. Healthcare systems should have tools to identify their oncological clinical pathways for a better institutional organization to reduce mortality rates and contain costs without compromising quality. Our objective is to determine the regional Oncology Clinical Pathway from a first basic hypothesis using questionnaires directed to healthcare professionals considered key deciders within the Pathway.MethodsStudy design consisted of data analysis of two structured region-wide questionnaires; built using available literature on Oncology Clinical Pathways, in a Portuguese Healthcare context and pre-tested in a focus group of key deciders (Physicians and nurses with management functions) from which a design was created. Queries analyzed the patients: tumor staging at service arrival; time intervals on tumor suspicion/diagnosis confirmation and diagnosis/first treatment; referral pathway; diagnostic networks and patient Follow-up. One questionnaire was sent to key deciders directly involved with Oncology patients at a Regional Hospital. 15 physicians and 18 nurses of this sample answered the questionnaire (approx. response rate = 67%). Another questionnaire sent to healthcare professionals in Primary Healthcare Centers yielded response rate 19.2%, N = 29 physicians and 46 nurses. Finally, we performed a descriptive analysis and a Cronbach Alpha reliability analysis.ResultsOur findings reveal: different appreciations of tumor staging at arrival in Primary Healthcare Centers and Regional Hospitals (the latter receiving more metastatic cases); approximately 4 weeks between tumor suspicion-diagnostic and divided opinions regarding diagnostic-treatment time intervals. Primary Healthcare Centers depend on private laboratories for diagnostics confirmation, while the Hospitals resolve this locally. Referral pathways indicate almost half of the patients being sent from primary healthcare centers to National Reference Hospitals instead of a Regional Hospital. Patient follow-up is developed throughout the institutions, however, is more established at Regional Hospitals. As patients advance through the Oncology Clinical Pathway and toward treatment stages the number of healthcare professionals involved reduce.ConclusionOur questionnaires enable us to understand the real pathway between the different institutions involved and the main entry points of the patients into the Oncology Clinical Pathway.

Project description:BackgroundDeveloping recommendations for how we deliver healthcare is often left to leading experts in a field. Findings from the Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) study, which aimed to identify best practice in integrated palliative care in cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, led to recommendations developed through an expert consultation process. We also wanted to develop these recommendations further with participants who were largely clinicians and members of the public.MethodsResults from the InSup-C study were disseminated through a three-week massive open online course (MOOC) which ran in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The first course helped develop the final recommendations, which were ranked by MOOC participants in the subsequent courses. MOOC participants were predominantly clinicians, but also academics and members of the public. They rated how important each recommendation was on a 9 point scale (9 most important). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the ratings. The results were compared to findings from the consultation.ResultsFive hundred fifteen completed the last part of the course where the recommendations were ranked, of which 195 (38%) completed the ratings. The top recommendations related to: need to expand palliative care to non-malignant conditions; palliative care needs to include different dimensions of care including physical, psychological and spiritual; policies and regulations assessments should be made regularly; palliative care integration should be mandatory; and there should be greater availability of medicines. These differed compared to the top ranked recommendations by the consultation panel in relation to the importance of leadership and policy making. This may indicate that clinicians are more focused on daily care rather than the (inter) national agenda.ConclusionsWhilst both sets of recommendations are important, our study shows that we need to include the views of clinicians and the public rather than rely upon leading expert opinion alone. To keep recommendations fresh we need both the input of clinicians, the public and experts. When disseminating findings, MOOCs offer a useful way to gain greater reach with clinicians and the public, and importantly could be a vehicle to validate recommendations made by leading expert panels.

Project description:Students commencing their medical training arrive with different educational backgrounds and a diverse range of learning experiences. Consequently, students would have developed preferred approaches to acquiring and processing information or learning style preferences. Understanding first-year students' learning style preferences is important to success in learning. However, little is understood about how learning styles impact learning and performance across different subjects within the medical curriculum. Greater understanding of the relationship between students' learning style preferences and academic performance in specific medical subjects would be valuable.This cross-sectional study examined the learning style preferences of first-year medical students and how they differ across gender. This research also analyzed the effect of learning styles on academic performance across different subjects within a medical education program in a Central Asian university. A total of 52 students (57.7% females) from two batches of first-year medical school completed the Index of Learning Styles Questionnaire, which measures four dimensions of learning styles: sensing-intuitive; visual-verbal; active-reflective; sequential-global.First-year medical students reported preferences for visual (80.8%) and sequential (60.5%) learning styles, suggesting that these students preferred to learn through demonstrations and diagrams and in a linear and sequential way. Our results indicate that male medical students have higher preference for visual learning style over verbal, while females seemed to have a higher preference for sequential learning style over global. Significant associations were found between sensing-intuitive learning styles and performance in Genetics [β = -0.46, B = -0.44, p < 0.01] and Anatomy [β = -0.41, B = -0.61, p < 0.05] and between sequential-global styles and performance in Genetics [β = 0.36, B = 0.43, p < 0.05]. More specifically, sensing learners were more likely to perform better than intuitive learners in the two subjects and global learners were more likely to perform better than sequential learners in Genetics.This knowledge will be helpful to individual students to improve their performance in these subjects by adopting new sensing learning techniques. Instructors can also benefit by modifying and adapting more appropriate teaching approaches in these subjects. Future studies to validate this observation will be valuable.