Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MUTYH associated polyposis (MAP) is an autosomal recessive inherited disorder. Carriers of bi-allelic <it>MUTYH </it>germline mutations have a risk of approximately 60% to develop colorectal carcinoma (CRC). In the general population about 1.5% is a heterozygous <it>MUTYH </it>mutation carrier. Children of MAP patients have an increased risk of inheriting two <it>MUTYH </it>mutations compared to the general population, implicating an increased risk for developing CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the literature and Dutch MAP patients (n = 40), we constructed a Markov model to perform a societal cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in MAP families. Genetic screening was done by testing the spouse first and, in case of a heterozygous spouse, also testing of the children.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cost of genetic screening of families of MAP patients, when compared to no genetic screening, was estimated at €25,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The presence of Fecal Occult Blood testing (FOBT) population screening only slightly increased this cost-utility ratio to €25,500 per QALY. For a MUTYH heterozygote index-patient, the ratio was €51,500 per QALY. The results of our analysis were sensitive to several of the parameters in the model, including the cost assumed for molecular genetic testing.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The costs per QALY of genetic screening in families of MAP patients are acceptable according to international standards. Therefore, genetic testing of spouses and/or children should be discussed with and offered to counselees.</p

Spiritual Well-Being and Depression in Patients with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure, depression is common and associated with poor quality of life, more frequent hospitalizations, and higher mortality. Spiritual well-being is an important, modifiable coping resource in patients with terminal cancer and is associated with less depression, but little is known about the role of spiritual well-being in patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between spiritual well-being and depression in patients with heart failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure. MEASUREMENTS: Spiritual well-being was measured using the total scale and 2 subscales (meaning/peace, faith) of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-being scale, depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale—Short Form (GDS-SF). RESULTS: The median age of participants was 75 years. Nineteen participants (32%) had clinically significant depression (GDS-SF > 4). Greater spiritual well-being was strongly inversely correlated with depression (Spearman’s correlation −0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.70 to −0.35). In particular, greater meaning/peace was strongly associated with less depression (r = −.60, P < .0001), while faith was only modestly associated (r = −.38, P < .01). In a regression analysis accounting for gender, income, and other risk factors for depression (social support, physical symptoms, and health status), greater spiritual well-being continued to be significantly associated with less depression (P = .05). Between the 2 spiritual well-being subscales, only meaning/peace contributed significantly to this effect (P = .02) and accounted for 7% of the variance in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with heart failure, greater spiritual well-being, particularly meaning/peace, was strongly associated with less depression. Enhancement of patients’ sense of spiritual well-being might reduce or prevent depression and thus improve quality of life and other outcomes in this population

Interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been considerable interest recently in developing and evaluating interventions to increase research use by clinicians. However, most work has focused on medical practices; and nursing is not well represented in existing systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the evidence on interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of research use in nursing was conducted using databases (Medline, CINAHL, Healthstar, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Psychinfo), grey literature, ancestry searching (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), key informants, and manual searching of journals. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before- and after-studies were included if they included nurses, if the intervention was explicitly aimed at increasing research use or evidence-based practice, and if there was an explicit outcome to research use. Methodological quality was assessed using pre-existing tools. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted and categorized using a pre-established taxonomy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over 8,000 titles were screened. Three randomized controlled trials and one controlled before- and after-study met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low. Three investigators evaluated single interventions. The most common intervention was education. Investigators measured research use using a combination of surveys (three studies) and compliance with guidelines (one study). Researcher-led educational meetings were ineffective in two studies. Educational meetings led by a local opinion leader (one study) and the formation of multidisciplinary committees (one study) were both effective at increasing research use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how to increase research use in nursing, and the evidence to support or refute specific interventions is inconclusive. To advance the field, we recommend that investigators: (1) use theoretically informed interventions to increase research use, (2) measure research use longitudinally using theoretically informed and psychometrically sound measures of research use, as well as, measuring patient outcomes relevant to the intervention, and (3) use more robust and methodologically sound study designs to evaluate interventions. If investigators aim to establish a link between using research and improved patient outcomes they must first identify those interventions that are effective at increasing research use.</p

To what extent do nurses use research in clinical practice? A systematic review

Background : In the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice. Methods : This study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high. Results : Following removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use. Conclusions : According to this review, nurses\u27 reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000\u27s. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses\u27 use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes.<br /

Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): building context – an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While there is a growing awareness of the importance of organizational context (or the work environment/setting) to successful knowledge translation, and successful knowledge translation to better patient, provider (staff), and system outcomes, little empirical evidence supports these assumptions. Further, little is known about the factors that enhance knowledge translation and better outcomes in residential long-term care facilities, where care has been shown to be suboptimal. The project described in this protocol is one of the two main projects of the larger five-year Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The purpose of this project is to establish the magnitude of the effect of organizational context on knowledge translation, and subsequently on resident, staff (unregulated, regulated, and managerial) and system outcomes in long-term care facilities in the three Canadian Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study protocol describes the details of a multi-level – including provinces, regions, facilities, units within facilities, and individuals who receive care (residents) or work (staff) in facilities – and longitudinal (five-year) research project. A stratified random sample of 36 residential long-term care facilities (30 urban and 6 rural) from the Canadian Prairie Provinces will comprise the sample. Caregivers and care managers within these facilities will be asked to complete the TREC survey – a suite of survey instruments designed to assess organizational context and related factors hypothesized to be important to successful knowledge translation and to achieving better resident, staff, and system outcomes. Facility and unit level data will be collected using standardized data collection forms, and resident outcomes using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set version 2.0 instrument. A variety of analytic techniques will be employed including descriptive analyses, psychometric analyses, multi-level modeling, and mixed-method analyses.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Three key challenging areas associated with conducting this project are discussed: sampling, participant recruitment, and sample retention; survey administration (with unregulated caregivers); and the provision of a stable set of study definitions to guide the project.</p

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the <it>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's <it>r </it>coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) <it>Standards </it>validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (<it>i.e.</it>, the <it>Standards</it>) in future research utilization measurement studies.</p