Toxicity of sodium cyanurate.

H. Hodge,B. Panner,W. L. Downs,E. A. Maynard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-008X(65)90123-7

IF: 4.46

1965-09-01

Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Measuring the overall performance of mental healthcare providers

María José Aragón,Hugh Gravelle,Adriana Castelli,Maria Goddard,Nils Gutacker,Anne Mason,Donna Rowen,Russell Mannion,Rowena Jacobs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116582

IF: 5.379

2024-01-13

Social Science & Medicine

Abstract:To date there have been no attempts to construct composite measures of healthcare provider performance which reflect preferences for health and non-health benefits, as well as costs. Health and non-health benefits matter to patients, healthcare providers and the general public. We develop a novel provider performance measurement framework that combines health gain, non-health benefit, and cost and illustrate it with an application to 54 English mental health providers. We apply estimates from a discrete choice experiment eliciting the UK general population's valuation of non-health benefits relative to health gains, to administrative and patient survey data for years 2013–2015 to calculate equivalent health benefit (eHB) for providers. We measure costs as forgone health and quantify the relative performance of providers in terms of equivalent net health benefit (eNHB): the value of the health and non-health benefits minus the forgone benefit equivalent of cost. We compare rankings of providers by eHB, eNHB, and by the rankings produced by the hospital sector regulator. We find that taking account of the non-health benefits in the eNHB measure makes a substantial difference to the evaluation of provider performance. Our study demonstrates that the provider performance evaluation space can be extended beyond measures of health gain and cost, and that this matters for comparison of providers.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
Measures to assess the performance of an Australian non-government charitable non-acute health service: A Delphi Survey of Organisational Stakeholders

Richard Colbran,Robyn Ramsden,Karen Stagnitti,Samantha Adams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484817725681

Abstract:Organisation performance measurement is relevant for non-profit charitable organisations as they strive for security in an increasingly competitive funding environment. This study aimed to identify the priority measures and indicators of organisational performance of an Australian non-government charitable organisation that delivers non-acute health services. Seventy-seven and 59 participants across nine stakeholder groups responded to a two-staged Delphi technique study of a case study organisation. The stage one questionnaire was developed using information garnered through a detailed review of literature. Data from the first round were aggregated and analysed for the stage two survey. The final data represented a group consensus. Quality of care was ranked the most important of six organisational performance measures. Service user satisfaction was ranked second followed by financial performance, internal processes, employee learning and growth and community engagement. Thirteen priority indicators were determined across the six measures. Consensus was reached on the priority organisational performance measures and indicators. Stakeholders of the case study organisation value evidence-based practice, technical strength of services and service user satisfaction over more commercially orientated indicators.
What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study

Rachel O’Loughlin,Caroline Lambert,Gemma Olsen,Kate Thwaites,Keir Saltmarsh,Julie Anderson,Nancy Devlin,Harriet Hiscock,Kim Dalziel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01239-y

2024-11-13

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to identify and describe common views of people with lived experience of mental health challenges – consumers and carers, families and supporters – of what they consider the most important measures to include in health economic evaluations which assess the incremental value of competing options in mental health care.

health policy & services
Consented indicators for the evaluation of integrated strategies of community health promotion targeting children and adolescents: results of an eDelphi

Myriam Robert,Michaela Coenen,Julia Bauer,Stephan Voss,Caroline Jung-Sievers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17370-4

IF: 4.5

2024-01-22

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background To date, there is no consensus on indicators for the evaluation of integrated community-based interventions for health promotion and prevention targeting children and adolescents. This study aims at consenting on a scoped set of indicators to evaluate integrated community-based interventions. Methods Out of 738 indicators derived from a literature search, we preselected 94 indicators allotted to 20 domains based on an internal quality appraisal and consensus process and conducted an eDelphi procedure to assess their relevance in view of experts. Experts were recruited in the field of public health, health sciences and communal health promotion in practice and were invited as participants in this eDelphi. During the eDelphi, 47 experts rated the relevance of 94 indicators in two rounds. Consensus was defined as agreement of 75% (or above). Results After round 1, 27 indicators among 11 consented subdomains reached a consensus on relevance. After round 2, a total of 36 indicators reached consensus on relevance in 9 subdomains (such as socioeconomic factors, health education, nutrition and physical activity, oral health, overall health status, specific health conditions, drug related behavior, exposure to drugs and violence, family factors). Conclusions These identified indicators may provide a basis for evaluation concepts of integrated community-based interventions for children and adolescents to inform stakeholders about intervention impacts.

public, environmental & occupational health
Implementation of stabilizing receding horizon controls for time-varying systems

Ki Baek Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(02)00087-0

2002-10-01

at - Automatisierungstechnik

Abstract:
Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

Glyn Elwyn,Dominick L Frosch,Sarah Kobrin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9

2016-08-08

Abstract:Background: The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences. Main argument: To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence. Conclusion: We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.
Ficin- and papain-catalyzed reactions. Effect of temperature on reactivity of the essential sulfhydryl group of ficin in the presence and absence of competitive inhibitors.

J. Whitaker,L. Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9861(72)90133-6

IF: 4.114

Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics

Abstract:
Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Aricca D Van Citters,Alice M Kennedy,Kathryn B Kirkland,Konstantin H Dragnev,Steven D Leach,Madge E Buus-Frank,Elissa F Malcolm,Megan M Holthoff,Anne B Holmes,Eugene C Nelson,Susan A Reeves,Anna N A Tosteson,Promise Partnership Delphi Panel,Albert Mulley,Amber Barnato,Amelia Cullinan,Andrew Williams,Ann Bradley,Anna Tosteson,Anne Holmes,Anne Ireland,Brant Oliver,Brock Christensen,Carol Majewski,Carolyn Kerrigan,Catherine Reed,Cathy Morrow,Corey Siegel,Daniel Jantzen,David Finley,Elissa Malcolm,Elizabeth Bengtson,Elizabeth McGrath,Elizabeth Stedina,Ellen Flaherty,Elliott Fisher,Eric Henderson,Erick Lansigan,Evan Benjamin,Gabriel Brooks,Garret Wasp,George Blike,Ira Byock,Janet Haines,Jenn Alford-Teaster,Jenna Schiffelbein,Jennifer Snide,Joanna Leyenaar,Jocelyn Chertoff,Joga Ivatury,Johanna Beliveau,John Sweetenham,Judith Rees,Julia Dalphin,Julie Kim,Karen Clements,Kathryn Kirkland,Kenneth Meehan,Konstantin Dragnev,Kris Bowen,Lawrence Dacey,Linton Evans,Malavika Govindan,Marcus Thygeson,Martha Goodrich,Mary Chamberlin,MaryAnn Stump,Matthew Mackwood,Matthew Wilson,Meredith Sorensen,Michael Calderwood,Paul Barr,Polly Campion,Ralph Jean-Mary,Rian M Hasson,Sai Cherala,Sally Kraft,Samuel Casella,Samuel Shields,Sandra Wong,Shoshana Hort,Stephanie Tomlin,Stephen Liu,Stephen LeBlanc,Steven Leach,Susan DiStasio,Susan Reeves,Virginia Reed,Wendy Wells,Whitney Hammond,Yolanda Sanchez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkac037

2022-05-02

Abstract:Background: Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS. Methods: A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities. Results: Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients). Conclusions: The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.
Measuring Effectiveness Based on Patient Experience (Instead of QALYs) in US Value Assessments

Maksat Jumamyradov,Benjamin M. Craig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01444-1

2024-11-04

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:A key challenge in value assessment is how to summarize effectiveness, particularly the impact of interventions on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One approach is to quantify the gains in HRQoL and life expectancy together as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); however, this approach has faced various criticisms regarding its potential discriminatory aspects toward persons with disabilities, older adults, and the most vulnerable individuals in society.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services,economics
A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

Thomas Woodcock,Yewande Adeleke,Christine Goeschel,Peter Pronovost,Mary Dixon-Woods

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0886-6

2020-01-14

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Abstract Background The design and execution of measurement in quality improvement (QI) initiatives is often poor. Better guidance on “what good looks like” might help to mitigate some of the problems. We report a consensus-building process that sought to identify which features are important to include in QI measurement plans. Methods We conducted a three-stage consensus-building approach: (1) identifying the list of features of measurement plans that were potential candidates for inclusion based on literature review and the study team’s experience; (2) a two-round modified Delphi exercise with a panel of experts to establish consensus on the importance of these features; and (3) a small in-person consensus group meeting to finalise the list of features. Results A list of 104 candidate questions was generated. A panel of 19 experts in the Delphi reviewed these questions and produced consensus on retaining 46 questions in the first round and on a further 22 in the second round. Thematic analysis of open text responses from the panellists suggested a number of areas of debate that were explicitly considered by the consensus group. The exercise yielded 74 questions (71% of 104) on which there was consensus in five categories of measurement relating to: design, data collection and management, analysis, action, and embedding. Conclusions This study offers a consensus-based view on the features of a good measurement plan for a QI project in healthcare. The results may be of use to QI teams, funders and evaluators, but are likely to require further development and testing to ensure feasibility and usefulness.

health care sciences & services
Folding and catalysis by the VS ribozyme.

D. Lafontaine,D. Norman,D. Lilley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9084(02)01406-2

IF: 4.372

2002-09-01

Biochimie

Abstract:
Meaningful health outcomes for paediatric neurodisability: Stakeholder prioritisation and appropriateness of patient reported outcome measures

Christopher Morris,Astrid Janssens,Valerie Shilling,Amanda Allard,Andrew Fellowes,Richard Tomlinson,Jane Williams,Jo Thompson Coon,Morwenna Rogers,Bryony Beresford,Colin Green,Crispin Jenkinson,Alan Tennant,Stuart Logan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0284-7

2015-06-25

Abstract:Background: Health services are increasingly focused on measuring and monitoring outcomes, particularly those that reflect patients' priorities. To be meaningful, outcomes measured should be valued by patients and carers, be consistent with what health professionals seek to achieve, and be robust in terms of measurement properties. The aim of this study was (i) to seek a shared vision between families and clinicians regarding key aspects of health as outcomes, beyond mortality and morbidity, for children with neurodisability, and (ii) to appraise which multidimensional patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) could be used to assess salient health domains. Methods: Relevant outcomes were identified from (i) qualitative research with children and young people with neurodisability and parent carers, (ii) Delphi survey with health professionals, and (iii) systematic review of PROMs. The International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health provided a common language to code aspects of health. A subset of stakeholders participated in a prioritisation meeting incorporating a Q-sorting task to discuss and rank aspects of health. Results: A total of 33 pertinent aspects of health were identified. Fifteen stakeholders from the qualitative and Delphi studies participated in the prioritisation meeting: 3 young people, 5 parent carers, and 7 health professionals. Aspects of health that emerged as more important for families and targets for health professionals were: communication, emotional wellbeing, pain, sleep, mobility, self-care, independence, mental health, community and social life, behaviour, toileting and safety. Whilst available PROMs measure many aspects of health in the ICF, no single PROM captures all the key domains prioritised as for children and young people with neurodisability. The paucity of scales for assessing communication was notable. Conclusions: We propose a core suite of key outcome domains for children with neurodisability that could be used in evaluative research, audit and as health service performance indicators. Future work could appraise domain-specific PROMs for these aspects of health; a single measure assessing the key aspects of health that could be applied across paediatric neurodisability remains to be developed.
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
Selection of indicators to measure public interest of public medical institutions:Based on the Delphi method

CHEN Ying-yao,NI Ming,HU Xian-zhi,LIANG Fei,ZHAO Lie-bin,LIU Jia-qi,SHI Li-zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-2982.2012.01.002

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To select indicators to evaluate public medical institution's public interest from a societal viewpoint of governance.Methods:The Delphi method was employed.Result:The main evaluation indicators of public medical institution's public interest were selected by two-round of the Delphi method,and the primary evaluation system was established.Indicators covered services for public health,emergency treatment and governmental tasks,appropriateness of services and expenses,quality of services,evaluation by consumers and services efficiency.Conclusion:There were more consistencies among experts regarding to selection of evaluation indicators while there were disputations for several indicators.It will be tested and justified by further theoretical and empirical research.
Understanding Canadian stakeholders' views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study

Feng Xie,Shitong Xie,Eleanor Pullenayegum,Arto Ohinmaa,Xie, Feng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03618-y

2024-03-06

Quality of Life Research

Abstract:Valuing child health is critical to assessing the value of healthcare interventions for children. However, there remain important methodological and normative issues. This qualitative study aimed to understand the views of Canadian stakeholders on these issues.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The Launch of International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Jian-Ting Zhang,J. Turchi,Rakesh Kumar,W. Hong,G. Shaw,Dengshun Wang

2010-07-28

Abstract:With publication of this inaugural issue, we are pleased to announce the launching of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ISSN 2152-4114) with the enthusiastic support and participation of all editorial board members as well as fellow scientists in the life science community. International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology is a peer-reviewed and open access online journal with a mission to facilitate the rapid dissemination of novel discoveries and findings in biochemistry and molecular biology to the scientific community and to the public. The primary goal of this open access online journal is to publish original research findings in biochemistry and molecular biology as well as review articles and hypotheses. International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology will also keep all the traditional features of print journals such as continuous volume, issue, and page numbers. All manuscripts including reviews will be subjected to peer review and published online within 1 months of acceptance. With the explosion of information and rapid advancement of science and technology, traditional paper print publishing gradually becomes a limiting factor in dissemination of important discoveries and findings. Many equal quality studies could not be published due to limited print space despite adoption of simultaneous online publications by the traditional existing journals. International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology offers another venue of unlimited space for quick publication of these high quality studies. However, these advantages in publishing in International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology are not at the expense of the quality of the published work. All manuscripts submitted to the International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology will be subjected to rigorous peer review with the highest standard of academic excellence. With this successful launching of the International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, we face enormous challenges from competition with many other established journals in biochemistry and molecular biology. Taking advantage of the rapidness of publication with unlimited space as well as the enthusiastic support of our editorial board members, we believe that we will be able to overcome these challenges and make International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology a successful story. In closing, we would like to thank all our editorial board members, colleagues, and contributing authors for their support and participation. We also welcome any suggestions to improve this journal which likely will be a continuous evolutionary process. We look forward to working with everyone to better serve the scientific community and the public in information dissemination.
Incorporating public and wider stakeholder views in the design of health state valuation studies in adults and young people: an undervalued resource?

Philip A. Powell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2334349

2024-03-26

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:KEYWORDS: Health state valuation (e.g. calculating numerical values representing people's relative preference for living in particular health states) is an essential ingredient for health technology assessment (HTA). It allows for the generation of utilities to calculate health-related quality of life outcomes and adds the 'QA' to the QALY, or quality-adjusted life year [ Citation 1 ]. For HTA, valuing health states uses standardized methodologies, such as time trade-off (TTO) or discrete choice experiment (DCE) with duration, with a targeted sample of people to derive their preference (or utility) weights for living in particular states of health relative to preference for survival or life expectancy. The sample used for valuing health states differs depending on locality and HTA body, but in the UK a sample of the adult (taxpaying) public is recruited, representative on key demographic criteria, such as age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status [ Citation 2 ].

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Leveraging Health-Related Quality of Life in Population Health Management: The Case for Healthy Days

S. Lane Slabaugh,Mona Shah,Matthew Zack,Laura Happe,Tristan Cordier,Eric Havens,Evan Davidson,Michael Miao,Todd Prewitt,Haomiao Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pop.2015.0162

2017-02-01

Population Health Management

Abstract:Measuring population health with morbidity and mortality data, often collected at the site of care, fails to capture the individual's perspective on health and well-being. Because health happens outside the walls of medical facilities, a holistic and singular measure of health that can easily be captured for an entire population could aid in understanding the well-being of communities. This paper postulates that Healthy Days, a health-related quality of life measure developed and validated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is an ideal survey instrument to advance population health. A systematic literature review was conducted and revealed a strong evidence base using Healthy Days with significant correlations to chronic disease conditions. Building on the literature base and experience, methods for analyzing Healthy Days data are discussed, including stratified sampling techniques, statistical measures to account for variance, and modeling techniques for skewed distributions. Using such analytic techniques, Healthy Days has been used extensively in national health surveillance. As the health care system faces increasing costs and constrained resources, the Healthy Days survey instrument can be used to inform public policies and allocate health service resources. Because Healthy Days captures broad dimensions of health from the individual's perspective, it is a simple way to holistically measure the health and well-being of a population and its trend over time. Expanded use of Healthy Days can aid population health managers and contribute to the understanding of the broader determinants of the nation's and individual community's health and aid in evaluating progress toward health goals.

health care sciences & services
Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study

Nancy Pandhi,Nora Jacobson,Madison Crowder,Andrew Quanbeck,Sarah Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14199

2024-10-18

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract:Rationale A barrier to dedicating resources towards patient engagement in primary care quality improvement is the lack of clearly identified outcomes that might result from these initiatives. Aims and objectives We sought to identify these potential outcomes at three healthcare levels as defined by the Institute of Medicine: 1) Micro/Direct Care; 2) Meso/Microsystem; and 3) Macro/Clinic/System using a Modified Delphi technique. Method Two focus groups of patients and primary care clinician leaders generated a first set of outcomes. These outcomes were then vetted and expanded through three web‐based surveys sent to twelve national experts. Experts indicated the level of agreement with prior elicited outcomes and generated potential new outcomes. Results Included outcomes achieved at least 80% agreement. The final list of 46 consensus‐derived outcomes was categorized across levels. 22 were at the Micro‐level, 9 were at the Meso‐level, and 15 were at the Macro‐level. Conclusion Our findings suggest outcomes across all health system levels have the potential for progress when patients are engaged in primary care quality improvement initiatives. Future programs should consider validating and measuring these outcomes as part of their interventions.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey

Louise Longworth,Yaling Yang,Tracey Young,Brendan Mulhern,Mónica Hernández Alava,Clara Mukuria,Donna Rowen,Jonathan Tosh,Aki Tsuchiya,Pippa Evans,Anju Devianee Keetharuth,John Brazier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18090

Abstract:Background: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends the use of generic preference-based measures (GPBMs) of health for its Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). However, these data may not be available or appropriate for all health conditions. Objectives: To determine whether GPBMs are appropriate for some key conditions and to explore alternative methods of utility estimation when data from GPBMs are unavailable or inappropriate. Design: The project was conducted in three stages: (1) A systematic review of the psychometric properties of three commonly used GPBMs [EQ-5D, SF-6D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3)] in four broadly defined conditions: visual impairment, hearing impairment, cancer and skin conditions. (2) Potential modelling approaches to 'map' EQ-5D values from condition-specific and clinical measures of health [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General Scale (FACT-G)] are compared for predictive ability and goodness of fit using two separate data sets. (3) Three potential extensions to the EQ-5D are developed as 'bolt-on' items relating to hearing, tiredness and vision. They are valued using the time trade-off method. A second valuation study is conducted to fully value the EQ-5D with and without the vision bolt-on item in an additional sample of 300 people. Setting: The valuation surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews in the respondents' homes. Participants: Two representative samples of the UK general population from Yorkshire (n=600). Interventions: None. Main outcome measures: Comparisons of EQ-5D, SF-6D and HUI3 in four conditions with various generic and condition-specific measures. Mapping functions were estimated between EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G with EQ-5D. Three bolt-ons to the EQ-5D were developed: EQ + hearing/vision/tiredness. A full valuation study was conducted for the EQ + vision. Results: (1) EQ-5D was valid and responsive for skin conditions and most cancers; in vision, its performance varied according to aetiology; and performance was poor for hearing impairments. The HUI3 performed well for hearing and vision disorders. It also performed well in cancers although evidence was limited and there was no evidence in skin conditions. There were limited data for SF-6D in all four conditions and limited evidence on reliability of all instruments. (2) Mapping algorithms were estimated to predict EQ-5D values from alternative cancer-specific measures of health. Response mapping using all the domain scores was the best performing model for the EORTC QLQ-C30. In an exploratory analysis, a limited dependent variable mixture model performed better than an equivalent linear model. In the full analysis for the FACT-G, linear regression using ordinary least squares gave the best predictions followed by the tobit model. (3) The exploratory valuation study found that bolt-on items for vision, hearing and tiredness had a significant impact on values of the health states, but the direction and magnitude of differences depended on the severity of the health state. The vision bolt-on item had a statistically significant impact on EQ-5D health state values and a full valuation model was estimated. Conclusions: EQ-5D performs well in studies of cancer and skin conditions. Mapping techniques provide a solution to predict EQ-5D values where EQ-5D has not been administered. For conditions where EQ-5D was found to be inappropriate, including some vision disorders and for hearing, bolt-ons provide a promising solution. More primary research into the psychometric properties of the generic preference-based measures is required, particularly in cancer and for the assessment of reliability. Further research is needed for the development and valuation of bolt-ons to EQ-5D. Funding: This project was funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of the MRC-NIHR methodology research programme (reference G0901486) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Toxicity of sodium cyanurate.

Measuring the overall performance of mental healthcare providers

Measures to assess the performance of an Australian non-government charitable non-acute health service: A Delphi Survey of Organisational Stakeholders

What are the priorities of consumers and carers regarding measurement for evaluation in mental healthcare? Results from a Q-methodology study

Consented indicators for the evaluation of integrated strategies of community health promotion targeting children and adolescents: results of an eDelphi

Implementation of stabilizing receding horizon controls for time-varying systems

Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences

Ficin- and papain-catalyzed reactions. Effect of temperature on reactivity of the essential sulfhydryl group of ficin in the presence and absence of competitive inhibitors.

Prioritizing Measures That Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Measuring Effectiveness Based on Patient Experience (Instead of QALYs) in US Value Assessments

A modified Delphi study to identify the features of high quality measurement plans for healthcare improvement projects

Folding and catalysis by the VS ribozyme.

Meaningful health outcomes for paediatric neurodisability: Stakeholder prioritisation and appropriateness of patient reported outcome measures

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

Selection of indicators to measure public interest of public medical institutions:Based on the Delphi method

Understanding Canadian stakeholders' views on measuring and valuing health for children and adolescents: a qualitative study

The Launch of International Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Incorporating public and wider stakeholder views in the design of health state valuation studies in adults and young people: an undervalued resource?

Leveraging Health-Related Quality of Life in Population Health Management: The Case for Healthy Days

Identifying potential outcomes of patient engagement in primary care quality improvement: a modified Delphi study

Use of generic and condition-specific measures of health-related quality of life in NICE decision-making: a systematic review, statistical modelling and survey