'The obstacle is the way' : methodological challenges and opportunities for video-reflexive ethnography during COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic greatly impacted research. In this article, we explore the opportunities and challenges presented by the pandemic to a group of researchers using video-reflexive ethnography (VRE) – a methodology used to understand practices, grounded in: exnovation, collaboration, reflexivity, and care. To understand how the pandemic impacted researchers using VRE, we facilitated two focus groups with 12 members of the International Association of Video-Reflexive Ethnographers. The findings suggest the pandemic exacerbated existing methodological challenges, yet also provided an opportunity reflect on our own practices as researchers, namely: accessing sites, building relationships, facilitating reflexive sessions, and cultivating care. Due to public health measures, some researchers used insiders to access sites. While these insiders shouldered additional burdens, this shift might have empowered participants, increased the salience of the project, and enabled access to rural sites. The inability to access sites and reliance on insiders also impeded researcher ability to build relationships with participants and generate the ethnographic insights often associated with prolonged engagement at a site. In reflexive sessions, researchers had to learn how to manage the technological, logistical, and methodological challenges associated with either themselves or participants being remote. Finally, participants noted that while the transition to more digital methodologies might have increased project reach, there needed to be a mindfulness around cultivating practices of care in the digital world to ensure psychological safety and protect participants data. These findings reflect the opportunities and challenges a group of researchers using VRE had during the pandemic and can be used to stimulate future methodologic discussions

Humor During Clinical Practice: Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters

Objective: Little is known about humor’s use in clinical encounters, despite its many potential benefits. We aimed to describe humor during clinical encounters. Design: We analyzed 112 recorded clinical encounters. Two reviewers working independently identified instances of humor, as well as information surrounding the logistics of its use. Results: Of the 112 encounters, 66 (59%) contained 131 instances of humor. Humor was similarly frequent in primary care (36/61, 59%) and in specialty care (30/51, 59%), was more common in gender-concordant interactions (43/63, 68%), and was most common during counseling (81/112, 62%). Patients and clinicians introduced humor similarly (63 vs 66 instances). Typically, humor was about the patient’s medical condition (40/131, 31%). Discussion and Conclusion: Humor is used commonly during counseling to discuss the patient’s medical condition and to relate to general life events bringing warmth to the medical encounter. The timing and topic of humor and its use by all parties suggests humor plays a role in the social connection between patients and physicians and allows easier discussion of difficult topics. Further research is necessary to establish its impact on clinicians, patients, and outcomes. (J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31: 270–278.) Keywords: Humor, Patient-Centered Care, Primary Health Care, Physician-Patient Relations, Patient-Physician Communicatio

Implementation strategies to improve statin utilization in individuals with hypercholesterolemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Numerous implementation strategies to improve utilization of statins in patients with hypercholesterolemia have been utilized, with varying degrees of success. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the state of evidence of implementation strategies on the uptake of statins. METHODS AND RESULTS: This systematic review identified and categorized implementation strategies, according to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation, used in studies to improve statin use. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov from inception to October 2018. All included studies were reported in English and had at least one strategy to promote statin uptake that could be categorized using the ERIC compilation. Data extraction was completed independently, in duplicate, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We extracted LDL-C (concentration and target achievement), statin prescribing, and statin adherence (percentage and target achievement). A total of 258 strategies were used across 86 trials. The median number of strategies used was 3 (SD 2.2, range 1-13). Implementation strategy descriptions often did not include key defining characteristics: temporality was reported in 59%, dose in 52%, affected outcome in 9%, and justification in 6%. Thirty-one trials reported at least 1 of the 3 outcomes of interest: significantly reduced LDL-C (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.17, 95% CI - 0.27 to - 0.07, p = 0.0006; odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.58, p = 0.0008), increased rates of statin prescribing (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.06, p \u3c 0.0001), and improved statin adherence (SMD 0.13, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.19; p = 0.0002; OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63, p = 0.023). The number of implementation strategies used per study positively influenced the efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although studies demonstrated improved statin prescribing, statin adherence, and reduced LDL-C, no single strategy or group of strategies consistently improved outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018114952

Patient Work and Treatment Burden in Type 2 Diabetes: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: To use quantitative and qualitative methods to characterize the work patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) enact and explore the interactions between illness, treatment, and life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this mixed-methods, descriptive study, adult patients with T2DM seen at the outpatient diabetes clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from February 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, were invited to participate. The study had 3 phases. In phase 1, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS) scale was used to quantify treatment burden. In phase 2, a convenience sample of patients used a smartphone application to describe, in real time, time spent completing diabetes self-management tasks and to upload descriptive digital photographs. In phase 3, these data were explored in qualitative interviews that were analyed by 2 investigators using deductive analysis. RESULTS: Of 162 participants recruited, 160 returned the survey (phase 1); of the 50 participants who used the smartphone application (phase 2), we interviewed 17 (phase 3). The areas in which patients reported highest treatment burden were difficulty with negotiating health services (eg, coordinating medical appointments), medical expenses, and mental/physical exhaustion with self-care. Participants reported that medical appointments required about 2.5 hours per day, and completing administrative tasks related to health care required about 45 minutes. Time spent on health behaviors varied widely-from 2 to 60 minutes in a given 3-hour period. Patients' experience of a task's burden did not always correlate with the time spent on that task. CONCLUSION: The most burdensome tasks to patients with T2DM included negotiating health care services, affording medications, and completing administrative tasks even though they were not the most time-consuming activities. To be minimally disruptive, diabetes care should minimize the delegation of administrative tasks to patients

Characterizing primary care for patients with major depressive disorder using electronic health records of a US-based healthcare provider

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is predominantly managed in primary care. However, primary care providers (PCPs) may not consistently follow evidence-based treatment algorithms, leading to variable patient management that can impact outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adult patients with MDD seen at Geisinger, an integrated health system. Utilizing electronic health record (EHR) data, we classified patients as having MDD based on International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9/10 codes or a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 score ≥5. Outcomes assessed included time to first visit with a PCP or behavioral health specialist following diagnosis, antidepressant medication switching, persistence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and treatment costs. Results: Among the 38,321 patients with MDD managed in primary care in this study, significant delays between diagnosis with antidepressant prescribing and follow-up PCP visits were observed. There was also considerable variation in care following diagnosis. Overall, 34.9% of patients with an ICD-9/10 diagnosis of MDD and 41.3% with a PHQ-9 score ≥15 switched antidepressants. An ICD-9/10 diagnosis, but not moderately severe to severe depression, was associated with higher costs and HRU. More than 75% of patients with MDD discontinued antidepressant medication within 6 months. Limitations: The study population was comparable with other real-world studies of MDD, but study limitations include its retrospective nature and reliance on the accuracy of EHRs. Conclusions: Management of patients with MDD in a primary care setting is variable. Addressing these gaps will have important implications for ensuring optimal patient management, which may reduce HRU and treatment medication costs, and improve treatment persistence

Self-management interventions for Type 2 Diabetes: systematic review protocol focusing on patient workload and capacity support

Introduction: People living with type 2 diabetes undertake a range of tasks to manage their condition, collectively referred to as self-management. Interventions designed to support self-management vary in their content, and efficacy. This systematic review will analyse self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes drawing on theoretical models of patient workload and capacity. Methods and analysis: Five electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be searched from inception to 27th April 2021, supplemented by citation searching and hand-searching of reference lists. Two reviewers will independently review titles, abstracts and full texts. Inclusion criteria include Population: Adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus; Intervention: Randomised controlled trials of self-management support interventions; Comparison: Usual care; Outcomes: HbA1c (primary outcome) health-related quality of life (QOL), medication adherence, self-efficacy, treatment burden, healthcare utilization (e.g. number of appointment, hospital admissions), complications of type 2 diabetes (e.g. nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, macrovascular disease) and mortality; Setting: Community. Study quality will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) risk of bias tool. Interventions will be classified according to the EPOC taxonomy and the PRISMS self-management taxonomy and grouped into similar interventions for analysis. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity will be assessed within subgroups, and random effects meta-analyses performed if appropriate. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. Interventions will be graded on their likely impact on patient workload and support for patient capacity. The impact of these theoretical constructs on study outcomes will be explored using meta-regression. Conclusion This review will provide a broad overview of self-management interventions, analysed within the cumulative complexity model theoretical framework. Analyses will explore how the workload associated with self-management, and support for patient capacity, impact on outcomes of self-management interventions. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42021236980

Patient capacity and constraints in the experience of chronic disease: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Life and healthcare demand work from patients, more so from patients living with multimorbidity. Patients must respond by mobilizing available abilities and resources, their so-called capacity. We sought to summarize accounts of challenges that reduce patient capacity to access or use healthcare or to enact self-care while carrying out their lives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature published since 2000 identifying from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL and retrieving selected abstracts for full text assessment for inclusion. After assessing their methodological rigor, we coded their results using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: The 110 reports selected, when synthesized, showed that patient capacity is an accomplishment of interaction with (1) the process of rewriting their biographies and making meaningful lives in the face of chronic condition(s); (2) the mobilization of resources; (3) healthcare and self-care tasks, particularly, the cognitive, emotional, and experiential results of accomplishing these tasks despite competing priorities; (4) their social networks; and (5) their environment, particularly when they encountered kindness or empathy about their condition and a feasible treatment plan. CONCLUSION: Patient capacity is a complex and dynamic construct that exceeds "resources" alone. Additional work needs to translate this emerging theory into useful practice for which we propose a clinical mnemonic (BREWS) and the ICAN Discussion Aid

A systematic review of shared decision making interventions in chronic conditions: a review protocol

Background: Chronic conditions are a major source of morbidity, mortality and cost worldwide. Shared decision making is one way to improve care for patients with chronic conditions. Although it has been widely studied, the effect of shared decision making in the context of chronic conditions is unknown. Methods/Design: We will perform a systematic review with the objective of determining the effectiveness of shared decision making interventions for persons diagnosed with chronic conditions. We will search the following databases for relevant articles: PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid EBM Reviews CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Ovid PsycInfo. We will also search clinical trial registries and contact experts in the field to identify additional studies. We will include randomized controlled trials studying shared decision making interventions in patients with chronic conditions who are facing an actual decision. Shared decision making interventions will be defined as any intervention aiming to facilitate or improve patient and/or clinician engagement in a decision making process. We will describe all studies and assess their quality. After adjusting for missing data, we will analyze the effect of shared decision making interventions on outcomes in chronic conditions overall and stratified by condition. We will evaluate outcomes according to an importance ranking informed by a variety of stakeholders. We will perform several exploratory analyses including the effect of author contact on the estimates of effect. Discussion: We anticipate that this systematic review may have some limitations such as heterogeneity and imprecision; however, the results will contribute to improving the quality of care for individuals with chronic conditions and facilitate a process that allows decision making that is most consistent with their own values and preferences

Balancing feasibility and comprehensiveness: examining medications for reducing emergency hospital admissions

Abstract Emergency hospital admissions are common, with several interventions having been developed to reduce their rates. Bobrovitz et al. summarized the available body of evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies aimed at reducing emergency hospital admissions, and identified 28 medications for which high- or moderate-quality evidence supports their use, 11 of which were identified as being supported by current guideline recommendations. Additionally, the authors identified 28 medications supported by low- or very low-quality evidence, which can serve as targets for future research. The article by Bobrovitz et al. presents a good summary of the evidence, albeit with limitations in the search strategy that cannot guarantee the review as comprehensive. Despite this, the review has important implications for policymakers, guideline panels, researchers, clinicians, and funders since the identified medications can either be targets for quality improvement initiatives or for future research. Bobrovitz et al.’s review highlights the challenge that systematic reviewers face when balancing feasibility and comprehensiveness. Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1104-