Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids

MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients

Decision aids can support cancer clinical trials decisions: Results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND. Cancer patients often do not make informed decisions regarding clinical trial participation. This study evaluated whether a web-based decision aid (DA) could support trial decisions compared with our cancer center’s website. METHODS. Adults diagnosed with cancer in the past 6 months who had not previously participated in a cancer clinical trial were eligible. Participants were randomized to view the DA or our cancer center’s website (enhanced usual care [UC]). Controlling for whether participants had heard of cancer clinical trials and educational attainment, multivariable linear regression examined group on knowledge, self-efficacy for finding trial information, decisional conflict (values clarity and uncertainty), intent to participate, decision readiness, and trial perceptions. RESULTS. Two hundred patients (86%) consented between May 2014 and April 2015. One hundred were randomized to each group. Surveys were completed by 87 in the DA group and 90 in the UC group. DA group participants reported clearer values regarding trial participation than UC group participants reported (least squares [LS] mean = 15.8 vs. 32, p < .0001) and less uncertainty (LS mean = 24.3 vs. 36.4, p = .025). The DA group had higher objective knowledge than the UC group’s (LS mean = 69.8 vs. 55.8, p < .0001). There were no differences between groups in intent to participate. CONCLUSIONS. Improvements on key decision outcomes including knowledge, self-efficacy, certainty about choice, and values clarity among participants who viewed the DA suggest web-based DAs can support informed decisions about trial participation among cancer patients facing this preference-sensitive choice. Although better informing patients before trial participation could improve retention, more work is needed to examine DA impact on enrollment and retention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper describes evidence regarding a decision tool to support patients’ decisions about trial participation. By improving knowledge, helping patients clarify preferences for participation, and facilitating conversations about trials, decision aids could lead to decisions about participation that better match patients’ preferences, promoting patient-centered care and the ethical conduct of clinical research

Addressing the Health Needs of an Aging America: New Opportunities for Evidence-Based Policy Solutions

This report systematically maps research findings to policy proposals intended to improve the health of the elderly. The study identified promising evidence-based policies, like those supporting prevention and care coordination, as well as areas where the research evidence is strong but policy activity is low, such as patient self-management and palliative care. Future work of the Stern Center will focus on these topics as well as long-term care financing, the health care workforce, and the role of family caregivers

Patient-powered research networks: building capacity for conducting patient-centered clinical outcomes research.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recently launched PCORnet to establish a single inter-operable multicenter data research network that will support observational research and randomized clinical trials. This paper provides an overview of the patient-powered research networks (PPRNs), networks of patient organizations focused on a particular health condition that are interested in sharing health information and engaging in research. PPRNs will build on their foundation of trust within the patient communities and draw on their expertise, working with participants to identify true patient-centered outcomes and direct a patient-centered research agenda. The PPRNs will overcome common challenges including enrolling a diverse and representative patient population; engaging patients in governance; designing the data infrastructure; sharing data securely while protecting privacy; prioritizing research questions; scaling small networks into a larger network; and identifying pathways to sustainability. PCORnet will be the first distributed research network to bring PCOR to national scale

Health Research Participants' Preferences for Receiving Research Results

BACKGROUND: Participants in health research studies typically express interest in receiving results from the studies in which they participate. However, participants’ preferences and experiences related to receiving results are not well understood. In general, existing studies have had relatively small sample sizes and typically address specific and often sensitive issues within targeted populations. METHODS: The present study used an online survey to explore attitudes and experiences of registrants in ResearchMatch, a large database of past, present, and potential health research participants. Survey respondents provided information related to whether or not they received research results from studies in which they participated, the methods used to communicate results, their satisfaction with results, and when and how they would like to receive research results from future studies. 70,699 ResearchMatch registrants were notified of the study’s topic. Of the 5,207 registrants who requested full information about the study, 3,381 respondents completed the survey. RESULTS: Approximately 33% of respondents with previous health research participation reported receiving results. Approximately half of respondents with previous research participation reported no opportunity to request results. However, almost all respondents said researchers should always or sometimes offer results to participants. Respondents expressed particular interest in results related to their (or a loved one's) health, as well as information about studies’ purposes and any medical advances based on the results. In general, respondents’ most preferred dissemination methods for results were email and website postings. The least desirable dissemination methods for results included Twitter, conference calls, and text messages. Across all results, we compare the responses of respondents with and without previous research participation experience, and those who have worked in research organizations vs. those who have not. Compared to respondents who have previous participation experience, a greater proportion of respondents with no participation experience indicated that results should always be shared with participants. Likewise, respondents with no participation experience placed higher importance on the receipt of each type of results information included in the survey. CONCLUSIONS: We present findings from a survey assessing attitudes and experiences of a broad sample of respondents that addresses gaps in knowledge related to participants’ preferences for receiving results. The study’s findings highlight the potential for inconsistency between respondents’ expressed preferences to receive specific types of results via specific methods and researchers’ unwillingness or inability to provide them. We present specific recommendations to shift the approach of new studies to investigate participants’ preferences for receiving research results

Communication interventions in adult and pediatric oncology: A scoping review and analysis of behavioral targets

BackgroundImproving communication requires that clinicians and patients change their behaviors. Interventions might be more successful if they incorporate principles from behavioral change theories. We aimed to determine which behavioral domains are targeted by communication interventions in oncology.MethodsSystematic search of literature indexed in Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov (2000-October 2018) for intervention studies targeting communication behaviors of clinicians and/or patients in oncology. Two authors extracted the following information: population, number of participants, country, number of sites, intervention target, type and context, study design. All included studies were coded based on which behavioral domains were targeted, as defined by Theoretical Domains Framework.FindingsEighty-eight studies met inclusion criteria. Interventions varied widely in which behavioral domains were engaged. Knowledge and skills were engaged most frequently (85%, 75/88 and 73%, 64/88, respectively). Fewer than 5% of studies engaged social influences (3%, 3/88) or environmental context/resources (5%, 4/88). No studies engaged reinforcement. Overall, 7/12 behavioral domains were engaged by fewer than 30% of included studies. We identified methodological concerns in many studies. These 88 studies reported 188 different outcome measures, of which 156 measures were reported by individual studies.ConclusionsMost communication interventions target few behavioral domains. Increased engagement of behavioral domains in future studies could support communication needs in feasible, specific, and sustainable ways. This study is limited by only including interventions that directly facilitated communication interactions, which excluded stand-alone educational interventions and decision-aids. Also, we applied stringent coding criteria to allow for reproducible, consistent coding, potentially leading to underrepresentation of behavioral domains

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Striving for Equity in Specialty Care Full Report

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.

Alcuni abstract di articoli che trattano argomenti relativi all'eHealth

Non utile per esam