Process evaluation of a multi-disciplinary complex intervention to improve care for older patients with chronic conditions in rural areas (the HandinHand Study): study protocol

Background To improve health care in rural areas, especially for increasing numbers of people with chronic diseases, academically qualified nurses could take over expanded roles to meet the challenges of an ageing society and a decreasing number of General Practitioners (GPs). In the project HandinHand (HiH), qualified nurses (Expert nurses, ENs) will carry out home visits to older people with chronic diseases over a period of six months. ENs will prepare a care plan in cooperation with GPs to stabilise the care situation and avoid unplanned hospital admissions and GP visits. The process evaluation aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the implementation process and gather important information on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of ENs as a complementary health care structure in primary care, taking into account several context factors. Methods Based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for complex interventions, a logic model was developed and applied as the basis for data collection. Qualitative and quantitative data will be collected during the study. A mixed methods approach should allow to gain important insights from participants (e.g. ENs, GPs, patients) involved in the study as well as relevant stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews and surveys will be conducted. Data analysis will be based on the logical model, combining qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data will be analysed inductively-deductively using qualitative thematic framework analysis. Discussion The process evaluation will provide guidance and conclusions on further development and transferability. Of particular interest is the expanded role of ENs in primary care, which has barely been implemented in Germany and can be seen as a precursor to the development of an Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) role in primary care

Cluster-Randomized Studies Part 25 of a Series on Evaluating Scientific Publications

Background: Cluster-randomized trials (CRT) are needed to compare interventions that are allocated to entire groups of subjects, rather than to individuals. Publications about CRT have become steadily more common over the past decade. Readers of such publications should be able to categorize and interpret the findings of CRT correctly while considering the methodological requirements applicable to this type of study. Methods: This review is based on a selection of pertinent literature and on the authors' expertise. CRT-specific methodological aspects of the planning, performance, and interpretation of studies are discussed. Results: Readers of publications on CRT should check whether due consideration has been given to correlations within and between the clusters during the planning of the study. These correlations enable the determination whether persons within a cluster resemble each other more closely, or respond more similarly to the study intervention, than persons drawn from different clusters. It should also be checked whether the randomization for the study has been carried out with such methods as stratification and covariate-adjusted randomization. CRT can be analyzed on either the individual or the cluster level. The rationale for the choice of a cluster-randomized design should be explained, and intracluster correlation coefficients (ICC) should be reported as an aid to the planning of future studies. Particular requirements are also described in an extended version of the CONSORT guidelines that has been developed specifically for CRT. Conclusion: Readers of publications on CRT should be aware of the special requirements mentioned above with respect to the design, performance, and analysis of this type of study as opposed to individually randomized studies. If no special techniques are applied in the design, performance, and analysis of a CRT, or if the assumptions underlying each of these steps have not been properly checked, then the findings of the study may well be misleading

Informal caregivers and advance care planning: systematic review with qualitative meta-synthesis

Background Advance care planning (ACP) is a communication process about a person's values, life goals and preferences for current and future treatment and care. It can improve end-of-life care experiences for care recipients as well as for family caregivers. Knowledge about caregivers' needs might support implementation of ACP interventions suitable to both care recipients and their caregivers. Objective To explore the experiences and attitudes of informal family caregivers, and their knowledge, regarding ACP. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted (participants: family caregivers; intervention: advance care planning; databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library). Thematic synthesis was applied to qualitative and mixed methods studies; quantitative studies were described in relation to the themes of the meta-synthesis. Results 57 studies were included, of these 51 in the meta-synthesis. Three themes emerged: (1) caregiver's individual conceptualisation of ACP, (2) caregiver's relationships and (3) ACP process. These themes were incorporated into a longitudinal perspective on the caregiver's ACP trajectory, encompassing the phases (A) life before, (B) ACP process, (C) utilisation of ACP and (D) life after. The implications for ACP activities are described according to each phase. Conclusion For the benefit of care recipients, healthcare professionals should carefully consider caregivers' conceptualisations of ACP as well as the relationships within the family. They need to be skilled communicators, sensitive to individual needs and equipped with sufficient time resources to tailor ACP interventions to their clients' unique situation. Thus, they will support decision-making according to care recipients' wishes, caregivers' end-of-life experience and their life after bereavement. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018082492

Nurses' burden caused by sleep disturbances of nursing home residents with dementia: multicenter cross-sectional study

Background Sleep disturbances are common in people with dementia. In nursing homes, this is frequently associated with residents' challenging behavior and potentially with nurses' burden. This study examined nurses' burden associated with nursing home residents' sleep disturbances. Methods A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted. Nurses' burden associated with residents' sleep disturbances was assessed using the Sleep Disorder Inventory (SDI). Additionally, the proportion of nurses' total burden associated with sleep disturbances of residents with dementia was assessed. A linear mixed regression model was used to investigate the association with nurses', residents' and institutional characteristics. Results One hundred eleven nurses from 38 nursing homes were included. 78.4% stated to be regularly confronted with residents' sleep disturbances during nightshifts, causing distress. The mean proportion of nurses' total burden caused by residents' sleep disturbances was 23.1 % (SD 18.1). None of the investigated characteristics were significantly associated with nurses' total burden. Conclusions Nurses report burden associated with sleep disturbances as common problem. There is a need to develop effective interventions for sleep problems and to train nurses how to deal with residents' sleep disturbances

Quality of Stroke Patient Information Applied in Randomized Controlled Trials-Literature Review

Background: Strokes have a huge impact on patients' quality of life. Although there are potentially effective secondary preventions and treatment options for stroke patients, adherence is mostly low. Low disease and treatment-related knowledge and, consequently, a lack of informed decision-making in stroke patients may contribute to this problem. However, stroke patient information did not seem to have relevant effects on patients' knowledge in randomized controlled trials. One contributing factor may be the lack of thoroughly developed patient information materials. Methods: We aimed to evaluate the quality of patient information materials for stroke patients by using randomized controlled trials, applying quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI). We conducted a literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL). To be included in the review, research had to be randomized controlled trials that provided stroke patient information, were published in English, and had knowledge assessed as the primary endpoint. Authors of primary studies were contacted and asked for information materials applied. Results: We screened 15,507 hits and identified 30 eligible studies. Information materials were available for only eight studies. Analyses revealed that all available materials had important shortcomings concerning EBPI quality criteria [concerning, for example, structural information (e.g., reporting conflicts of interest), content information (e.g., reporting sources of information), or comprehensive descriptions of treatment effects and side effects]. Frequently, treatment effects were reported only narratively without providing absolute numbers, values, or frequencies. Conclusion: Quality of materials differed, but none sufficiently fulfilled EBPI quality criteria. Unsatisfactory trial results concerning patient knowledge and patient involvement in decision-making may at least partially be explained by limitations of the provided materials. Future patient information should consider EBPI quality criteria

Evaluation of an interactive web-based programme on relapse management for people with multiple sclerosis (POWER@MS2): study protocol for a process evaluation accompanying a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Process evaluations accompanying complex interventions examine the implementation process of the underlying intervention, identify mechanisms of impact and assess contextual factors. This paper presents the protocol for a process evaluation conducted alongside the randomised controlled trial POWER@MS2. The trial comprises the evaluation of a web-based complex intervention on relapse management in 188 people with multiple sclerosis conducted in 20 centres. The web-based intervention programme focuses on relapse treatment decision making and includes a decision aid, a nurse-led webinar and an online chat. With the process evaluation presented here, we aim to assess participants' responses to and interactions with the intervention to understand how and why the intervention produces change. Methods and analysis A mixed methods design is used to explore the acceptance of the intervention as well as its use and impact on participants. Participants are people with multiple sclerosis, neurologists, nurses and stakeholders. Quantitative semistandardised evaluation forms will be collected throughout the study. Qualitative semistructured telephone interviews will be conducted at the end of the study with selected participants, especially people with multiple sclerosis and neurologists. Quantitative data will be collected and analysed descriptively. Based on the results, the qualitative interviews will be conducted and analysed thematically, and the results will be merged in a joint display table. Ethics and dissemination The process evaluation has received ethical approval from the Ethical Committee of the University of Lubeck (reference 19-024). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at conferences, meetings and on relevant patient websites