Problem solving ability and repetition of deliberate self-harm: a multicentre study.

Background. While recent studies have found problem-solving impairments in individuals who engage in deliberate self-harm (DSH), few studies have examined repeaters and non-repeaters separately. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether specific types of problem-solving are associated with repeated DSH. Method. As part of the WHO/EURO Multicentre Study on Suicidal Behaviour, 836 medically treated DSH patients (59% repeaters) from 12 European regions were interviewed using the European Parasuicide Study Interview Schedule (EPSIS II) approximately 1 year after their index episode. The Utrecht Coping List (UCL) assessed habitual responses to problems. Results. Factor analysis identified five dimensions – Active Handling, Passive-Avoidance, Problem Sharing, Palliative Reactions and Negative Expression. Passive-Avoidance – characterized by a pre-occupation with problems, feeling unable to do anything, worrying about the past and taking a gloomy view of the situation, a greater likelihood of giving in so as to avoid difficult situations, the tendency to resign oneself to the situation, and to try to avoid problems – was the problem-solving dimension most strongly associated with repetition, although this association was attenuated by self-esteem. Conclusions. The outcomes of the study indicate that treatments for DSH patients with repeated episodes should include problem-solving interventions. The observed passivity and avoidance of problems (coupled with low self-esteem) associated with repetition suggests that intensive therapeutic input and follow-up are required for those with repeated DSH

The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011)

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor recruitment into clinical trials rests on a patient ‘deficit’ model – an inability to comprehend trial processes. Poor communication has also been cited as a possible barrier to recruitment. A qualitative patient interview study was included within the feasibility stage of a phase III non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (SPARE, CRUK/07/011) in muscle invasive bladder cancer. The aim was to illuminate problems in the context of randomization. METHODS: The qualitative study used a ‘Framework Analysis’ that included ‘constant comparison’ in which semi-structured interviews are transcribed, analyzed, compared and contrasted both between and within transcripts. Three researchers coded and interpreted data. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients agreed to enter the interview study; 10 decliners of randomization and 14 accepters, of whom 2 subsequently declined their allocated treatment. The main theme applying to the majority of the sample was confusion and ambiguity. There was little indication that confusion directly impacted on decisions to enter the SPARE trial. However, confusion did appear to impact on ethical considerations surrounding ‘informed consent’, as well as cause a sense of alienation between patients and health personnel. Sub-optimal communication in many guises accounted for the confusion, together with the logistical elements of a trial that involved treatment options delivered in a number of geographical locations. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the difficulty of providing balanced and clear trial information within the UK health system, despite best intentions. Involvement of multiple professionals can impact on communication processes with patients who are considering participation in RCTs. Our results led us to question the ‘deficit’ model of patient behavior. It is suggested that health professionals might consider facilitating a context in which patients feel fully included in the trial enterprise and potentially consider alternatives to randomization where complex interventions are being tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN6112646

How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? A realist synthesis

Background: In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians’ awareness of patients’ problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes. Results: PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit. Conclusions: This paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making