THE LAY INTERVIEWER IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH.

L. Robins,N. W. Braroe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-196401000-00009

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Marie-Eve Lamontagne,Marie-Pierre Gagnon,Kadija Perreault,Véronique Gauthier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/24319

2021-11-23

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.
The Development of Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Guidelines for an Online Geriatric Assessment Tool: A Canadian Modified Delphi Panel Study

Martine Puts,Efthymios Papadopoulos,Sarah Brennenstuhl,Sara Durbano,Nazia Hossain,Brenda Santos,Kristin Cleverley,Shabbir M. H. Alibhai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29020073

2022-02-04

Current Oncology

Abstract:Background: There are no guidelines available for what assessment tools to use in a patient’s self-completed online geriatric assessment (GA) with management recommendations. Therefore, we used a modified Delphi approach with Canadian expert clinicians to develop a consensus online GA plus recommendations tool. Methods: The panel consisted of experts in geriatrics, oncology, nursing, and pharmacy. Experts were asked to rate the importance and feasibility of assessments and interventions to be included in an online GA for patients. The items included in the first round were based on guidelines for in-person GA and literature review. The first two rounds were conducted using an online survey. A virtual 2 h meeting was held to discuss the items where no consensus was reached and then voted on in the final round. Results: 34 experts were invited, and 32 agreed to participate. In round 1, there were 85 items; in round 2, 50 items; and in round 3, 25 items. The final tool consists of fall history, assistive device use, weight loss, medication review, need help taking medication, social supports, depressive symptoms, self-reported vision and hearing, and current smoking status and alcohol use. Conclusion: This first multidisciplinary consensus on online GA will benefit research and clinical care for older adults with cancer.

oncology
Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study

M C Brouwers,M Vukmirovic,K Spithoff,C Zwaal,S McNair,N Peek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3747/co.25.3943

Abstract:Background: Patient engagement is a key quality component of cancer guideline development; however, the optimal strategy for engaging patients in guideline development remains unclear. The feasibility and efficacy of two patient engagement models was tested by Cancer Care Ontario's cancer guideline development program, the Program in Evidence-Based Care (pebc). Methods: In model 1, patients participated in the guideline development process as active members of a working group. In model 2, patients formed a separate consultation group to review project plans and recommendations generated by multiple working groups. Training included online resources (model 1) and an in-person orientation (model 2). The pebc's standard patient engagement process acted as a control. The study was conducted for 1 year. Surveys measured the satisfaction of patients and members of the guideline working groups with the process and the outcome of each model. Results: Three guideline projects used model 1 to engage patients, six projects used model 2 to receive feedback, and one project was used as a control group (14 patients total). Most participants, whatever the model, reported satisfaction with their experience. Key challenges to implementation included patient recruitment and long wait times between meetings (model 1), and difficulty focusing on the discussion topic and poor meeting attendance on the part of patients (model 2). Conclusions: The pilot study demonstrated that, although both models are feasible and effective for the engagement of patients in cancer guideline development, modifications are required to optimize their continued interest. The pebc will use the study results to inform the implementation of a patient engagement strategy for its program.
Prehospital Providers' Perspectives about Online Medical Direction in Emergency End-of-Life Decision-Making

Deborah P Waldrop,Michael R Waldrop,Jacqueline M McGinley,Charlotte R Crowley,Brian Clemency

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2020.1863532

Abstract:Background: End-of-life treatment decisions present special challenges for prehospital emergency providers. Paramedics regularly make value-laden choices that transcend technical judgment and professional skill, affecting the type of care, how and to whom it is provided. Changes in prehospital emergency care over the last decade have created new moral challenges for prehospital emergency providers; these changes have also accentuated the need for paramedics to make rapid and reasoned ethical judgments. Objective: The purpose of the study was to explore the decision-making process that occurs when prehospital emergency teams respond to an end-of-life call with a focus on how state authorized documents such as a Non-Hospital Do Not Resuscitate (NHDNR) or Medical/Physician's Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST/POLST) or lack thereof inform decision-making. This paper presents the specific circumstances that informed the need for intervention from Online Medical Direction (OLMD) framed in the perspectives and words of the prehospital providers seeking that assistance. Methods: This study involved in-depth in-person interviews with 50 providers to elicit participants' experiences in their own words using a semi-structured interview instrument. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed with permission. Results: Five themes emerged that illuminated how and when OLMD was involved in emergency end-of-life decisions: Termination of Resuscitation (TOR); Family Revoked DNR; Missing Documents; No Documents and No CPR; and Unusual Situations. Participants illustrated how the decision to terminate efforts was best-supported when it was made by collaboration between the on-scene provider and OLMD. Participants described ethical dilemmas when families asked them to initiate CPR in the presence of DNR orders and cognitive dissonance when CPR has been initiated but a valid DNR/MOLST is subsequently located. Conclusions: The study findings demonstrate the invaluable contribution of OLMD for complex end-of-life care decisions by prehospital providers, especially when there are difficult legal, ethical, and logistical questions. OLMD provides far more than technical support.
Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Jennifer Petkovic,Alison Riddle,Elie A Akl,Joanne Khabsa,Lyubov Lytvyn,Pearl Atwere,Pauline Campbell,Kalipso Chalkidou,Stephanie M Chang,Sally Crowe,Leonila Dans,Fadi El Jardali,Davina Ghersi,Ian D Graham,Sean Grant,Regina Greer-Smith,Jeanne-Marie Guise,Glen Hazlewood,Janet Jull,S Vittal Katikireddi,Etienne V Langlois,Anne Lyddiatt,Lara Maxwell,Richard Morley,Reem A Mustafa,Francesco Nonino,Jordi Pardo Pardo,Alex Pollock,Kevin Pottie,John Riva,Holger Schünemann,Rosiane Simeon,Maureen Smith,Airton T Stein,Anneliese Synnot,Janice Tufte,Howard White,Vivian Welch,Thomas W Concannon,Peter Tugwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-1272-5

2020-02-01

Abstract:Background: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Methods: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. Discussion: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.
A Delphi‐based approach to developing the contents of an online resource, Care Assist, for male caregivers of women with breast cancer

Sandra Goria,Afaf Girgis,Joanne Shaw,Astrid Przezdziecki,Janelle Levesque,Adeola Bamgboje‐Ayodele,Care Assist Co‐Authorship Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.5962

2022-05-17

Abstract:Objective Informal male caregivers of women with breast cancer have significant psychological, emotional, and social burdens that are inadequately addressed by current face‐to‐face interventions. Online interventions overcome barriers that limit engagement with face‐to‐face interventions. This study aimed to develop the contents of Care Assist, an online supportive care resource for male caregivers of breast cancer patients, through expert consensus. Methods A Delphi study comprising two survey rounds and an expert consultation was conducted. In Round 1, experts in breast cancer care rated the importance of 25 content items. In Round 2, they re‐rated content items that failed to reach consensus (i.e. 80% agreement) in Round 1 or were newly developed. Free‐text responses were also collected. During expert consultation, the resource was reviewed and revised for clarity. Iterative refinement followed all rounds. Quantitative data was analysed descriptively, and qualitative data was analysed using content analysis. Results Twenty‐two experts participated and reached consensus on 96% of items, with 217 comments provided on: (a) the perceived benefits of Care Assist to caregivers and care recipients, (b) recommendations of newly suggested content items, wording, and use of external links, and (c) concerns regarding information overload and need for tailoring. The expert consultation comments focused on clarifying scope, wording, and information tailoring. Conclusion The rigorous Delphi process resulted in the content for a comprehensive online supportive care intervention for male caregivers. Information overload can be minimised through self‐identification of needs and utilisation of eHealth to personalise the resource for the heterogeneous male caregiver population. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

oncology,social sciences, biomedical,psychology, multidisciplinary
Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design

Free Coulston,Alicia Spittle,Cassie McDonald,Rachel Toovey,Kate L Cameron,Kimberley Attard,Loni Binstock,Isaac Fletcher,Adie Delaney,Tayla Murphy,Caroline Keating,Kath Sellick

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14138

Abstract:Introduction: Co-design in health research involves patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in intervention or service design. Traditionally, co-design is undertaken in-person; however, exploring online delivery is warranted. PPIE in co-design must be considered carefully, and assumptions that in-person approaches will transition automatically to an online environment should be avoided. Currently, there are a lack of evidence-informed approaches to facilitating co-design online. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a framework for authentically adapting health research co-design into an online environment. Materials and methods: The initial framework was developed through a literature review, synthesis of in-person co-design principles, and alignment of online strategies. The framework was then applied to a co-design project with 10 participants across relevant PPIE groups (end-users [n = 4], clinicians [n = 2], coaches [n = 2] and clinician-researchers [n = 2]). Participants' experiences of the online co-design process were evaluated via a mixed-methods design using surveys and semi-structured interviews. Evaluation data were analysed using descriptive statistics and reflexive thematic analysis to inform a revised framework. Results: The developed framework, Partnership-focussed Principles-driven Online co-Design (P-POD) was used to design eight 90 min online co-design workshops. Evaluation data involved 46 survey responses, and eight participants were interviewed on project completion. Survey data indicated that the process was satisfying, engaging and adhered to the P-POD framework. Themes derived from interview data describe a respectful and collaborative online culture, valuing of diverse perspectives and space for healthy debate, how power was perceived as being shared but not equal and multiple definitions of success within and beyond the process. A final, refined P-POD framework is presented. Conclusion: With evaluation of the initial P-POD framework showing evidence of adherence to co-design principles, positive participant experiences and goal achievement for both the project and the participants, the refined P-POD framework may be used and evaluated within future intervention or service design. Patient or public contribution: This study involved the participants (end-users, clinicians and service providers) in the co-design process described, interpretation of the results through member-checking interview responses, assisting in development of the final framework and as co-authors for this manuscript.
Acceptability and usability of the Planning Advance Care Together (PACT) website for improving patients' engagement in advance care planning

Casey A Walsh,Sarah J Miller,Cardinale B Smith,Holly G Prigerson,Daniel McFarland,Sarah Yarborough,Claudia De Los Santos,Robert Thomas,Sara J Czaja,Arindam RoyChoudhury,Eloise Chapman-Davis,Mark Lachs,Megan J Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100245

2023-12-12

Abstract:Objectives: Most prior advance care planning (ACP) interventions lack integration of the social context of patients' ACP process, which patients indicate is critically important. The current study developed the Planning Advance Care Together (PACT) website to foster inclusion of loved ones in the ACP process. Methods: To provide feedback about the PACT website, patients with advanced cancer (N = 11), their caregivers (N = 11), and experts (N = 10) participated in semi-structured interviews. Patients and caregivers also completed standardized ratings of acceptability and usability. Results: Overall, patient (n = 11) and caregiver (n = 11) ratings of acceptability and usability of the website exceeded benchmark cut-offs (≥24 on the Acceptability E-Scale and ≥ 68 on the System Usability Scale). Patients, caregivers, and experts liked the topic of ACP but felt that it could be emotionally challenging. They recommended focusing more on planning and less on end of life. They appreciated being able to include loved ones and recommended adding resources for caregivers. Conclusions: Study findings support the preliminary usability and acceptability of the PACT website. Findings will be used to inform a modified prototype of the PACT website that is interactive and ready for field testing with patients with advanced cancer and their loved ones. Innovation: We utilized a novel application of the shared mind framework to support patients with advanced cancer in engaging their loved ones in the ACP process.
An Approach to Diversifying the Selection of a Guideline Panel—The Process Utilized for the Updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines

Sara Nikravan,Michael J. Lanspa,Enyo Ablordeppey,Anthony T. Gerlach,Lori Shutter,Hariyali Patel,Karin Reuter-Rice,Kim Lewis,Sameer Sharif,José L. Díaz-Gómez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000006290

IF: 8.8

2024-04-08

Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines are essential for promoting evidence-based healthcare. While diversification of panel members can reduce disparities in care, processes for panel selection lack transparency. We aim to share our approach in forming a diverse expert panel for the updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines. Design: This process evaluation aims to understand whether the implementation of a transparent and intentional approach to guideline panel selection would result in the creation of a diverse expert guideline panel. Setting: This study was conducted in the setting of creating a guideline panel for the updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines. Patients: Understanding that family/patient advocacy in guideline creations can promote the impact of a clinical practice guideline, patient representation on the expert panel was prioritized. Interventions: Interventions included creation of a clear definition of expertise, an open invitation to the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership to apply for the panel, additional panel nomination by guideline leadership, voluntary disclosure of pre-identified diversity criteria by potential candidates, and independent review of applications including diversity criteria. This resulted in an overall score per candidate per reviewer and an open forum for discussion and final consensus. Measurements and Main Results: The variables of diversity were collected and analyzed after panel selection. These were compared with historical data on panel composition. The final guideline panel comprised of 33 panelists from six countries: 45% women and 79% historically excluded people and groups. The panel has representation from nonphysician professionals and patients advocates. Of the healthcare professionals, there is representation from early, mid, and late career stages. Conclusions: Our intentional and transparent approach resulted in a panel with improved gender parity and robust diversity along ethnic, racial, and professional lines. We hope it can serve as a starting point as we strive to become a more inclusive and diverse discipline that creates globally representative guidelines.

critical care medicine
Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

Sarah E. P. Munce,Elliott Wong,Dorothy Luong,Justin Rao,Jessie Cunningham,Katherine Bailey,Tomisin John,Claire Barber,Michelle Batthish,Kyle Chambers,Kristin Cleverley,Marilyn Crabtree,Sanober Diaz,Gina Dimitropoulos,Jan Willem Gorter,Danijela Grahovac,Ruth Grimes,Beverly Guttman,Michèle L Hébert,Megan Henze,Amanda Higgins,Dmitry Khodyakov,Elaine Li,Lisha Lo,Laura Macgregor,Sarah Mooney,Samadhi Mora Severino,Geetha Mukerji,Melanie Penner,Jacklynn Pidduck,Rayzel Shulman,Lisa Stromquist,Patricia Trbovich,Michelle Wan,Laura Williams,Darryl Yates,Alene Toulany

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080822

IF: 3.006

2024-05-09

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. Methods and analysis Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. ed data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives. Protocol registration https://osf.io/beqjr

medicine, general & internal
Applying human‐centered design to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for goals‐of‐care discussions in persons living with dementia

Jennifer Im,Erin K. Kross,Ruth A. Engelberg,Danae G. Dotolo,Anna Ungar,Elizabeth Nielsen,Janaki Torrence,Nauzley C. Abedini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.18965

2024-05-28

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract:Background Goals‐of‐care discussions (GOCD) are uncommon in persons living with dementia (PLWD) despite the likelihood of eventual loss of decisional capacity in the population. The Jumpstart Guide, an existing serious illness communication priming tool, can improve GOCD in certain populations, but has not previously been adapted for use among PLWD and their caregivers. Methods Using human‐centered design (HCD), we adapted the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers. We conducted qualitative interviews with clinicians and caregivers of PLWD. Six team members conducted qualitative rapid analysis of interviews leading to the development of summary templates and integrative matrices. Four iterations of the Jumpstart Guide led to the final version. Results Thirteen clinicians and 11 caregivers were interviewed. Interviews provided key insights into the unique barriers PLWD and their caregivers face during GOCD, including discomfort with accepting a dementia diagnosis and concern with using "serious illness" to describe dementia, as is commonly done in palliative care. Clinicians described differences in GOCD with PLWD compared to other serious illnesses, and the challenge of getting patients and families to think about future health states. Interviews led to Jumpstart Guide adaptations in the following domains: (1) format and structure, (2) content, and (3) specific language. Suggested changes included prioritizing naming a decision‐maker, changing conversation prompts to improve accessibility and understandability, ensuring the Jumpstart Guide could be used with patients as well as their caregivers, and altering language to avoid references to "serious illness" and "abilities." Conclusion Using HCD yielded valuable insights from clinicians and caregivers about the unique barriers to conducting GOCD among PLWD and their caregivers. These insights were used to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for use with PLWD and their caregivers, which is currently being tested in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in outpatient clinics.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
Assessing the quality of deliberative stakeholder consultations involving allied health professionals in pediatric palliative care and hematology/oncology in Canada

Vasiliki Rahimzadeh,Cristina Longo,Justin Gagnon,Conrad Fernandez,Gillian Bartlett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-021-00884-2

2021-12-01

BMC Palliative Care

Abstract:Abstract Background In this paper we assess the quality of six deliberative stakeholder consultations regarding the implementation of a precision diagnostic for life-threatening pediatric brain tumors. Decision makers who base policy recommendations on the outputs of consultative exercises can presuppose that all deliberants are well informed of the policy issue, that participation in the deliberative process was fair, and that overcoming implementation barriers will necessarily result in practice change. Additional evidence is therefore needed to substantiate the informational quality of the deliberation, measure the equality of participation and study the effects on stakeholder reasoning to appropriately guide uptake of proposed recommendation(s). Methods Using the DeVries framework for assessing the deliberative quality, we analyzed data from 44 post-consultation evaluation surveys completed by pediatric oncology and palliative care teams at two tertiary pediatric healthcare centers in Canada. We also conducted turn-taking and word-contribution analyses from the text transcriptions of each deliberation to assess equality of participation using descriptive statistics. Results Deliberants agreed the quality of the deliberative process was fair (median ratings ranging from 9–10 out of 10) and the opportunities to receive expert information and discuss with others about the implementation of a new LDT were helpful (9.5 out of 10). While the session improved understanding of the implementation barriers and opportunities, it had marginal effects on deliberants’ reasoning about whether LDTs would change their own clinical practice (3–10 out of 10). Participation was proportionate in at least four of the six deliberations, where no deliberant took more than 20% of total turns and contributed equal to, or less than 20% of total words. Conclusion The quality assessment we performed demonstrates high informational value and perceived fairness of two deliberative stakeholder consultations involving pediatric palliative care and oncology teams in Canada. Quality assessments can reveal how the process of deliberation unfolds, whether deliberative outputs are the result of equitable participation among deliberants and what, if any, stakeholder voices may be missing. Such assessments should be routinely reported as a condition of methodological rigor and trustworthiness of deliberative stakeholder engagement research.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Using Grounded Theory to Inform the Human-Centered Design of Digital Health in Geriatric Palliative Care

Jennifer Dickman Portz,Kelsey Lynett Ford,Katherine Doyon,David B Bekelman,Rebecca S Boxer,Jean S Kutner,Sara Czaja,Sheana Bull

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.06.027

Abstract:Context: Digital health offers innovative mechanisms to engage in palliative care, yet digital systems are typically designed for individual users, rather than integrating the patient's caregiving "social convoy" (i.e., family members, friends, neighbors, formal caregiving supports) to maximize benefit. As older adults with serious illness increasingly rely on the support of others, there is a need to foster effective integration of the social convoy in digitally supported palliative care. Objectives: Conduct a qualitative study examining patient, social convoy, and health care provider perspectives on digital health for palliative care to inform the design of future digital solutions for older adults with serious illness and their social convoy. Methods: Grounded theory approach using semi-structured interviews (N = 81) with interprofessional health care providers, older adults with serious illness, and their social convoy participants at home, clinic, or Zoom. Interviews were conducted using question guides relevant to the participant group and audio-recorded for verbatim transcription. Two coders lead the inductive analysis using open and axial coding. Results: Thematic results aligned with the human-centered design framework, which is a participatory approach to the design process that incorporates multiple user stakeholders to develop health solutions. The human-centered design process and corresponding theme included the following: 1) Empathy: Patient, Caregiver, and Provider Experience reports participants' experience with managing serious illness, caregiving, social support, and technology use. 2) Define: Reactions to Evidence-Based Care Concepts and Barriers illustrates participants' perspectives on the domains of palliative care ranging from symptom management to psychosocial-spiritual care. 3) Ideation: Desired Features reports participant recommendations for designing digital health tools for palliative care domains. Conclusion: Digital health provides an opportunity to expand the reach of geriatric palliative care interventions. This paper documents human-centered preferences of geriatric palliative care digital health to ensure technologies are relevant and meaningful to health care providers, patients, and the caregiving social convoy.
Barriers and facilitators to engaging with a digital self‐management programme for painful distal upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative exploratory study

Samantha J. Mason,Lucy M. Brading,Kathleen Kane,Philip G. Conaghan,Sarah R. Kingsbury,Gretl A. McHugh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14056

2024-06-12

Health Expectations

Abstract:Introduction People living with a painful distal upper limb musculoskeletal disorder (DUL‐MSD) often experience pain, difficulty in doing everyday tasks and a reduced quality of life. Currently, there are challenges in the treatment of DUL‐MSDs, highlighting the need to develop innovative approaches to rehabilitation. A potential solution is to develop and implement a digital self‐management rehabilitation programme focussing on optimising recovery, improving function and reducing pain. Before developing this programme, we aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to using a digital health intervention (DHI) for self‐management of DUL‐MSDs. Objective This study aimed to investigate the potential barriers and facilitators to using a DHI with people living with DUL‐MSDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods A qualitative exploratory study was carried out with purposely selected participants consisting of 15 participants with DUL‐MSDs and 13 HCPs. Three focus groups (FGs) and four semistructured interviews with DUL‐MSD participants and semistructured interviews with 13 HCPs were conducted. FGs and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results To address challenges in the care and management of DUL‐MSDs, both HCPs and people living with a DUL‐MSD welcomed the development of a DHI. This study identified several barriers and facilitators that would influence engagement with a digital intervention. Findings suggest that in developing a DHI, attention needs to be paid to digital design features, usability, tailoring, personalisation and consideration of how well usual care could be replicated digitally without direct HCP involvement. Conclusion The identified digital design features of importance to participants will inform the design of a digital self‐management rehabilitation programme for people living with DUL‐MSDs. Addressing the barriers and facilitators to engagement with a DHI is essential in ensuring its relevance and acceptability to those who will use it. Patient or Public Contribution Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) was integral throughout the study. PPIE members contributed to the development and planning of this study, checked and confirmed the relevance of the findings and are involved in the dissemination plans.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
An expert consensus on the most effective components of integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for lifestyle behaviour change: protocol for an online modified Delphi study

Stephen Barrett,Stephen Begg,Ashley Dunford,Paul O'Halloran,Kane Rodda,Emily Denniss,Jeff Breckon,Michael Kingsley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088988

IF: 3.006

2024-10-19

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Behaviour change interventions are advocated as a key approach to manage behavioural risk factors such as insufficient physical activity, poor diet and smoking. Integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy (MI-CBT) interventions have become increasingly popular to promote behaviour change; however, there is a lack of agreement as to what constitutes necessary components of MI-CBT interventions for lifestyle behaviour change. The primary objective of this study is to use a consensus method to develop guidelines to design and deliver MI-CBT interventions for lifestyle behaviour change. Methods A three-round modified Delphi study will be conducted with an expert, international panel of clinicians and researchers. An online survey will be developed from assessments of key MI-CBT literature and practice guides to identify commonly used components of individually delivered MI and CBT interventions. In each round, participants will rate the extent to which they agree with each component using a Likert scale. Responses from Rounds 1 and 2 will be presented to participants in subsequent rounds. Responses will be represented using bar graphs and include the median and IQR of participants' responses. To encourage consensus, participants will be asked to consider the group responses before finalising their opinion to the statements. If at least 80% of the experts agree to a statement in Rounds 2 or 3, it will be included in a final list of necessary statements. Discussion This modified Delphi process will help transparency in the design and implementation of MI-CBT interventions. The consensus statement will also help reporting and comparability among effectiveness studies for MI-CBT intervention studies, and help inform research, policy and practice. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been granted by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number HEC24066). The results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences and international professional associations.

medicine, general & internal
Guidance on how to involve people with lived experience in research on digital mental health interventions

I. Wells,E. Thelwell,D. Giacco

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2024.171

2024-08-30

European Psychiatry

Abstract:Introduction Digital technologies and interventions (defined as patient-facing or self-administered interventions delivered through a digital platform) have an increasing role in mental health care. It is key to ensure that appropriate patient and public involvement (PPI) is not overlooked when developing new digital mental health interventions (DMHIs). The unique perspective offered by those with lived experience can improve study conduct and design as well as ensure that interventions meet the needs of users, which may improve their quality and acceptability. Objectives To develop guidance for the involvement of people with lived experience of severe mental illness in designing and conducting research on DMHIs. Methods Four co-production workshops were arranged online with people who have lived experience of severe mental illness. Initial ideas were formulated in the first workshop and were then prioritised in the second workshop using the nominal group technique. The prioritised ideas were then refined in workshops three and four. Minutes were generated from each workshop and were validated by the those who took part. These minutes were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Nineteen people with lived experience participated in the co-production workshops overall. Six people took part in one workshop only and 13 took part in multiple workshops. Two main themes were identified in this study: why do people become and remain involved in PPI?; and what areas should be discussed within PPI consultations? Three subthemes associated with the second theme were also identified. These are: areas related to specific types of DMHI; areas related to any type of DMHI; and what can make a difference within DMHIs? To ensure that people become and remain interested in PPI around DMHIs, it is important to provide a non-judgemental space for people with lived experience to discuss any concerns and ensure they feel valued during consultations. Aspects to consider discussing in PPI consultations around the development of DMHIs include the provision of safety and security within DMHIs, issues around digital exclusion and the potential impact of people's symptoms on DMHI use. Finally, points that were identified as important to consider when developing DMHIs include offering encouragement throughout the DMHI, accommodating for individual and collective needs within DMHIs and developing a structure within the DMHI which includes adding in attainable goals. Conclusions If used, the information provided from this study can generate positive and productive PPI consultations where those with lived experience can make significant contributions to the development of DMHIs. Such contributions will increase the acceptability and efficacy of the DMHIs developed. Disclosure of Interest None Declared

psychiatry
Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

Laura E Walker,M Fernanda Bellolio,Claudia C Dobler,Ian G Hargraves,Robert J Pignolo,Kevin Shaw,Jacob J Strand,Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir,Michael E Wilson,Erik P Hess

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211058082

2021-11-13

Abstract:Background: Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design: A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results: A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations: Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions: Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients' values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.
Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review

Saskia Jünger,Sheila A Payne,Jenny Brine,Lukas Radbruch,Sarah G Brearley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685

IF: 5.7133

2017-02-13

Palliative Medicine

Abstract:Background: The Delphi technique is widely used for the development of guidance in palliative care, having impact on decisions with relevance for patient care. Aim: To systematically examine the application of the Delphi technique for the development of best practice guidelines in palliative care. Design: A methodological systematic review was undertaken using the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete and EMBASE. Data sources: Original articles (English language) were included when reporting on empirical studies that had used the Delphi technique to develop guidance for good clinical practice in palliative care. Data extraction included a quality appraisal on the rigour in conduct of the studies and the quality of reporting. Results: A total of 30 empirical studies (1997–2015) were considered for full-text analysis. Considerable differences were identified regarding the rigour of the design and the reporting of essential process and outcome parameters. Furthermore, discrepancies regarding the use of terms for describing the method were observed, for example, concerning the understanding of a ‘round’ or a ‘modified Delphi study’. Conclusion: Substantial variation was found concerning the quality of the study conduct and the transparency of reporting of Delphi studies used for the development of best practice guidance in palliative care. Since credibility of the resulting recommendations depends on the rigorous use of the Delphi technique, there is a need for consistency and quality both in the conduct and reporting of studies. To allow a critical appraisal of the methodology and the resulting guidance, a reporting standard for Conducting and REporting of DElphi Studies (CREDES) is proposed.

medicine, general & internal,public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development

Catherine H Yu,Calvin Ke,Aleksandra Jovicic,Susan Hall,Sharon E Straus,IP-SDM Team;,Paul Cantarutti,Karen Chu,Paul Frydrych,Noah Ivers,David Kaplan,Fok-Han Leung,John Maxted,Jeremy Rezmovitz,Sumeet Sodhi,Deanna Telner,Joanna Sale,Li Ka Shing,Dawn Stacey,Sharon Straus

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0898-5

2019-09-18

Abstract:Background: An individualized approach using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting is a person-centred strategy that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. SDM has not been adopted extensively in clinical practice. An interprofessional approach to SDM with tools to facilitate patient participation may overcome barriers to SDM use. The aim was to explore decision-making experiences of health professionals and people with diabetes (PwD), then develop an intervention to facilitate interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) and goal-setting. Methods: This was a multi-phased study. 1) Feasibility: Using a descriptive qualitative study, individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and PwD were conducted. The interviews explored their experiences with SDM and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, relevance of a decision aid for priority-setting, and integration of SDM and a decision aid into practice. 2) Development: An evidence-based SDM toolkit was developed, consisting of an online decision aid, MyDiabetesPlan, and implementation tools. MyDiabetesPlan was reviewed by content experts for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Usability assessment was done with 3) heuristic evaluation and 4) user testing, followed by 5) refinement. Results: Seven PwD and 10 clinicians participated in the interviews. From interviews with PwD, we identified that: (1) approaches to decision-making were diverse and dynamic; (2) a trusting relationship with the clinician and dialog were critical precursors to SDM; and, (3) goal-setting was a dynamic process. From clinicians, we found: (1) complementary (holistic and disease specific) approaches to the complex patient were used; (2) patient-provider agendas for goal-setting were often conflicting; (3) a flexible approach to decision-making was needed; and, (4) conflict could be resolved through SDM. Following usability assessment, we redesigned MyDiabetesPlan to consist of data collection and recommendation stages. Findings were used to finalize a multi-component toolkit and implementation strategy, consisting of MyDiabetesPlan, instructional card and videos, and orientation meetings with participating patients and clinicians. Conclusions: A decision aid can provide information, facilitate clinician-patient dialog and strengthen the therapeutic relationship. Implementation of the decision aid can fit into a model of team care that respects and exemplifies professional identity, and can facilitate intra-team communication. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.
User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review

Gratianne Vaisson,Thierry Provencher,Michèle Dugas,Marie-Ève Trottier,Selma Chipenda Dansokho,Heather Colquhoun,Angela Fagerlin,Anik M. C. Giguere,Hina Hakim,Lynne Haslett,Aubri S. Hoffman,Noah M. Ivers,Anne-Sophie Julien,France Légaré,Jean-Sébastien Renaud,Dawn Stacey,Robert J. Volk,Holly O. Witteman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X20984134

2021-03-04

Medical Decision Making

Abstract:When designing and developing patient decision aids, guidelines recommend involving patients and stakeholders. There are myriad ways to do this. We aimed to describe how such involvement occurs by synthesizing reports of patient decision aid design and development within a user-centered design framework and to provide context by synthesizing reports of user-centered design applied to other personal health tools. We included articles describing at least one development step of 1) a patient decision aid, 2) user- or human-centered design of another personal health tool, or 3) evaluation of these. We organized data within a user-centered design framework comprising 3 elements in iterative cycles: understanding users, developing/refining prototype, and observing users. We included 607 articles describing 325 patient decision aid projects and 65 other personal health tool projects. Fifty percent of patient decision aid projects reported involving users in at least 1 step for understanding users, 35% in at least 1 step for developing/refining the prototype, and 84% in at least 1 step for observing users' interaction with the prototype. In comparison, other personal health tool projects reported 91%, 49%, and 92%, respectively. A total of 74% of patient decision aid projects and 92% of other personal health tool projects reported iterative processes, both with a median of 3 iterative cycles. Preliminary evaluations such as usability or feasibility testing were reported in 66% of patient decision aid projects and 89% of other personal health tool projects. By synthesizing design and development practices, we offer evidence-based portraits of user involvement. Those wishing to further align patient decision aid design and development with user-centered design methods could involve users earlier, design and develop iteratively, and report processes in greater detail.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics,health policy & services

THE LAY INTERVIEWER IN PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH.

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

The Development of Geriatric Assessment and Intervention Guidelines for an Online Geriatric Assessment Tool: A Canadian Modified Delphi Panel Study

Engaging cancer patients in clinical practice guideline development: a pilot study

Prehospital Providers' Perspectives about Online Medical Direction in Emergency End-of-Life Decision-Making

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

A Delphi‐based approach to developing the contents of an online resource, Care Assist, for male caregivers of women with breast cancer

Development and Evaluation of a Framework for Authentic Online Co-Design: Partnership-Focussed Principles-Driven Online Co-Design

Acceptability and usability of the Planning Advance Care Together (PACT) website for improving patients' engagement in advance care planning

An Approach to Diversifying the Selection of a Guideline Panel—The Process Utilized for the Updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

Applying human‐centered design to adapt the Jumpstart Guide for goals‐of‐care discussions in persons living with dementia

Assessing the quality of deliberative stakeholder consultations involving allied health professionals in pediatric palliative care and hematology/oncology in Canada

Using Grounded Theory to Inform the Human-Centered Design of Digital Health in Geriatric Palliative Care

Barriers and facilitators to engaging with a digital self‐management programme for painful distal upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative exploratory study

An expert consensus on the most effective components of integrated motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioural therapy for lifestyle behaviour change: protocol for an online modified Delphi study

Guidance on how to involve people with lived experience in research on digital mental health interventions

Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review

Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development

User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review