| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Kwon, J. Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement in Radiation Oncology: Interpretation of Individual Scores and Change over Time in Clinical Practice
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Current Oncology. - : MDPI AG. - 1198-0052 .- 1718-7729. ; 29:5, s. 3093-3103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Tools for measuring patients' perceived health and quality of life, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), inform clinical decisions for patients requiring radiation therapy. However, there may be inconsistencies in how patients interpret and respond to PROMs due to cultural, environmental, personal, or experiential factors. Differential item functioning (DIF) and response shift (RS) refer to differences in the meaning of PROMs between patients or over time (respectively). DIF and RS can threaten the accurate interpretation and use of PROMs, potentially resulting in erroneous conclusions about effectiveness, and flawed individual-level clinical decision-making. Given the empirical evidence of DIF and RS, we aim to review clinical implications and solutions for addressing DIF and RS by providing vignettes from collaborative examinations with workshop participants, as well as the literature. By making these methodological concepts accessible and relevant, for practice, clinicians may feel more confident to ask clarifying questions of patients when PROM scores and the contextual patient information do not align. PROM scores need to be interpreted via dialogue with the patient to avoid misinterpretation due to DIF and RS, which could diminish patient-clinician communication and impede shared decision-making. This work is part of an interdisciplinary knowledge translation initiative focused on the interpretation of PROM scores by clinically-oriented audiences.
|
|
| 3. |
- Schick-Makaroff, K., et al.
(författare)
-
An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1178-1653 .- 1178-1661. ; 15, s. 21-38
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology. Objectives Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why. Methods Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes. Results After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes. Conclusion The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Schick-Makaroff, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease. - 2040-6223. ; 14
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.Objectives: We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care. Design: A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).Methods: Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.Results: Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre-and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.Conclusion: Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.
|
|
| 6. |
- Schick-Makaroff, K., et al.
(författare)
-
How Are Albertans "Adjusting to and Coping With" Dialysis? A Cross-Sectional Survey
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease. - : SAGE Publications. - 2054-3581. ; 9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Depression and anxiety are commonly reported (40% and 11%-52%) among adults receiving dialysis, compared with similar to 10% among all Canadians. Mental health in dialysis care is underrecognized and undertreated. Objective: (1) To describe preferences for mental health support reported by Albertans receiving dialysis; (2) to compare depression, anxiety, and quality-of-life (QOL) domains for people who would or would not engage in support for mental health; and (3) to explore sociodemographic, mental health, and QOL domains that explain whether people would or would not engage in support for mental health. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting: Alberta, Canada. Patients: Adults receiving all modalities of dialysis (N = 2972). Measurements: An online survey with questions about preferences for mental health support and patient-reported outcome measures (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9], Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 [GAD-7], and Kidney Disease QOL Instrument-36 [KDQOL-36]). Methods: To address objectives 1 and 2, we conducted chi-square tests (for discrete variables) and t tests (for continuous variables) to compare the distributions of the above measures for two groups: Albertans receiving dialysis who would engage or would not engage in support for mental health. We subsequently conducted a series of binary logistic regressions guided by the purposeful variable selection approach to identify a subset of the most relevant explanatory variables for determining whether or not people are more likely to engage in support for mental health (objective 3). To further explain differences between the two groups, we analyzed open-text comments following a summative content analysis approach. Results: Among 384 respondents, 72 did not provide a dialysis modality or answer the PHQ-9. The final data set included responses from 312 participants. Of these, 59.6% would consider engaging in support, including discussing medication with a family doctor (72.1%) or nephrologist (62.9%), peer support groups (64.9%), and talk therapy (60%). Phone was slightly favored (73%) over in person at dialysis (67.6%), outpatient (67.2%), or video (59.4%). Moderate to severe depressive symptoms (PHQ-9 score >= 10) was reported by 33.4%, and most respondents (63.9%) reported minimal anxiety symptoms; 36.1% reported mild to severe anxiety symptoms (GAD-7 score >= 5). The mean (SD) PHQ-9 score was 8.9 (6.4) for those who would engage in support, and lower at 5.8 (4.8) for those who would not. The mean (SD) GAD-7 score was 5.2 (5.6) for those who would engage in support and 2.8 (4.1) for those who would not. In the final logistic regression model, people who were unable to work had 2 times the odds of engaging in support than people who are able to work. People were also more likely to engage in support if they had been on dialysis for fewer years and had lower (worse) mental health scores (odds ratios = 1.06 and 1.38, respectively). The final model explained 15.5% (Nagelkerke R-2) of the variance and with 66.6% correct classification. We analyzed 146 comments in response to the question, "Is there anything else you like to tell us." The top 2 categories for both groups were QOL and impact of dialysis environment. The third category differed: those who would engage wrote about support, whereas those who would not engage wrote about "dialysis is the least of my worries." Limitations: A low response rate of 12.9% limits representativeness; people who chose not to participate may have different experiences of mental health. Conclusions: Incorporating patients' preferences and willingness to engage in support for mental health will inform future visioning for person-centered mental health care in dialysis.
|
|
| 7. |
- Schick-Makaroff, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Strategies for incorporating patient-reported outcomes in the care of people with chronic kidney disease (PRO kidney): a protocol for a realist synthesis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Systematic Reviews. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2046-4053. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (jointly referred to here as PROs) are internationally recognized as a means for patients to provide information about their quality of life, symptoms, and experiences with care. Although increasingly recognized as key to improving the quality of healthcare at individual (e.g., patients, caregivers, and providers) and aggregate (e.g., government, policy/system-wide decision-making) levels, there are important knowledge gaps in our understanding of how PROs are, and can be, used across different settings, particularly in nephrology to enhance person-centered care. This knowledge is needed for developing strategies to guide optimal use of PROs in nephrology care. Currently, no strategies exist. The purpose of this review is to address this knowledge gap by answering the following realist question: How can PROs be used to enhance person-centered nephrology care, both at individual and aggregate levels? Methodology: Realist synthesis is an explanatory approach to data synthesis that aims to explain how context and mechanisms influence the outcome of an intervention. An initial program theory will be developed through the systematic search of the published literature in bibliographic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCOhost CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) on existing theories explaining how PROs are used in healthcare settings. This initial program theory will then be tested and refined through the process of realist synthesis, using context-mechanism-outcome configurations. A kidney-specific program theory will then be created to address the utilization of PROs in nephrology across individual and aggregate levels to augment person-centered care. Searching will be iterative and refined as data is extracted and analyzed using a pilot-tested context + mechanism = outcome heuristic. Throughout, we will consult methodological experts, research team practitioners, and the Patient Advisory Committee to help refine the theories. Last, we will develop and disseminate knowledge translation products widely to knowledge user groups. Discussion: The utilization of PROs remains a challenge in nephrology. The findings from this synthesis will provide a framework to guide both policy makers and practitioners on how to enhance person-centered care through successful utilization of PROs across individual and aggregate levels in nephrology.
|
|
| 8. |
- Schick-Makaroff, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Using Patient- and Family-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures Across Transitions of Care for Frail Older Adults Living at Home: A Meta-Narrative Synthesis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Gerontologist. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0016-9013. ; 61:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Objectives: Our aim was to create a "storyline" that provides empirical explanation of stakeholders' perspectives underlying the use of patient- and family-reported outcome and experience measures to inform continuity across transitions in care for frail older adults and their family caregivers living at home. Research Design and Methods: We conducted a meta-narrative synthesis to explore stakeholder perspectives pertaining to use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) across micro (patients, family caregivers, and healthcare providers), meso (organizational managers/executives/programs), and macro (decision-/policy-makers) levels in healthcare. Systematic searches identified 9,942 citations of which 40 were included based on full-text screening. Results: PROMs and PREMS (54 PROMs; 4 PREMs; 1 with PROM and PREM elements; 6 unspecified PROMs) were rarely used to inform continuity across transitions of care and were typically used independently, rarely together (n = 3). Two overarching traditions motivated stakeholders' use. The first significant motivation by diverse stakeholders to use PROMs and PREMs was the desire to restore/support independence and care at home, predominantly at a micro-level. The second motivation to using PROMs and PREMs was to evaluate health services, including cost-effectiveness of programs and hospital discharge (planning); this focus was rarely at a macro-level and more often split between micro- and meso-levels of healthcare. Discussion and Implications: The motivations underlying stakeholders' use of these tools were distinct, yet synergistic between the goals of person/family-centered care and healthcare system-level goals aimed at efficient use of health services. There is a missed opportunity here for PROMs and PREMs to be used together to inform continuity across transitions of care.
|
|
