510 research outputs found

    Psychometric properties of the Patient Assessment Of Chronic Illness Care measure: acceptability, reliability and validity in United Kingdom patients with long-term conditions.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) is a US measure of chronic illness quality of care, based on the influential Chronic Care Model (CCM). It measures a number of aspects of care, including patient activation; delivery system design and decision support; goal setting and tailoring; problem-solving and contextual counselling; follow-up and coordination. Although there is developing evidence of the utility of the scale, there is little evidence about its performance in the United Kingdom (UK). We present preliminary data on the psychometric performance of the PACIC in a large sample of UK patients with long-term conditions. METHOD: We collected PACIC, demographic, clinical and quality of care data from patients with long-term conditions across 38 general practices, as part of a wider longitudinal study. We assess rates of missing data, present descriptive and distributional data, assess internal consistency, and test validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and through associations between PACIC scores, patient characteristics and related measures. RESULTS: There was evidence that rates of missing data were high on PACIC (9.6% - 15.9%), and higher than on other scales used in the same survey. Most PACIC sub-scales showed reasonable levels of internal consistency (alpha = 0.68 - 0.94), responses did not demonstrate high skewness levels, and floor effects were more frequent (up to 30.4% on the follow up and co-ordination subscale) than ceiling effects (generally <5%). PACIC demonstrated preliminary evidence of validity in terms of measures of long-term condition care. Confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the five factor PACIC structure proposed by the scale developers did not fit the data: reporting separate factor scores may not always be appropriate. CONCLUSION: The importance of improving care for long-term conditions means that the development and validation of measures is a priority. The PACIC scale has demonstrated potential utility in this regard, but further assessment is required to assess low levels of completion of the scale, and to explore the performance of the scale in predicting outcomes and assessing the effects of interventions.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

    Eighth National GP Worklife Survey

    Get PDF

    Is telephone health coaching a useful population health strategy for supporting older people with multimorbidity? : An evaluation of reach, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness using a 'trial within a cohort'

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Innovative ways of delivering care are needed to improve outcomes for older people with multimorbidity. Health coaching involves 'a regular series of phone calls between patient and health professional to provide support and encouragement to promote healthy behaviours'. This intervention is promising, but evidence is insufficient to support a wider role in multimorbidity care. We evaluated health coaching in older people with multimorbidity. METHODS: We used the innovative 'Trials within Cohorts' design. A cohort was recruited, and a trial was conducted using a 'patient-centred' consent model. A randomly selected group within the cohort were offered the intervention and were analysed as the intervention group whether they accepted the offer or not. The intervention sought to improve the skills of patients with multimorbidity to deal with a range of long-term conditions, through health coaching, social prescribing and low-intensity support for low mood. RESULTS: We recruited 4377 older people, and 1306 met the eligibility criteria (two or more long-term conditions and moderate 'patient activation'). We selected 504 for health coaching, and 41% consented. More than 80% of consenters received the defined 'dose' of 4+ sessions. In an intention-to-treat analysis, those selected for health coaching did not improve on any outcome (patient activation, quality of life, depression or self-care) compared to usual care. We examined health care utilisation using hospital administrative and self-report data. Patients selected for health coaching demonstrated lower levels of emergency care use, but an increase in the use of planned services and higher overall costs, as well as a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain. The incremental cost per QALY was £8049, with a 70-79% probability of being cost-effective at conventional levels of willingness to pay. CONCLUSIONS: Health coaching did not lead to significant benefits on the primary measures of patient-reported outcome. This is likely related to relatively low levels of uptake amongst those selected for the intervention. Demonstrating effectiveness in this design is challenging, as it estimates the effect of being selected for treatment, regardless of whether treatment is adopted. We argue that the treatment effect estimated is appropriate for health coaching, a proactive model relevant to many patients in the community, not just those seeking care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ( ISRCTN12286422 )

    Improving hearing and vision in dementia : Protocol for a field trial of a new intervention

    Get PDF
    IntroductionQuality of life and other key outcomes may be improved by optimising hearing and vision function in people living with dementia. To date, there is limited research assessing the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving hearing and vision in people with dementia. Here, we outline a protocol to field test a newly developed home-based intervention, designed to optimise sensory functioning in people with dementia in three European sites. The results of this study will inform the design and conduct of a full-scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) in five European sites.Methods and analysisIn this multisite, single arm, open label, feasibility study, participants with dementia (n=24) will be assessed for hearing and vision impairments and be prescribed a hearing aid and/or glasses. Each participant will have a study partner (‘dyads’). A subset of dyads will receive ‘sensory support’ from a ‘sensory support therapist’, comprising home visits over 12 weeks. The therapist will offer the following intervention: adherence support for corrective devices; adaptations to the home environment to facilitate sensory function; communication training; and referral to community-based support services. The primary outcomes will be process measures assessing the feasibility, tolerability and acceptability of: (1) the intervention components; (2) the method of implementation of the intervention and (3) the study procedures, including outcome assessment measures. Quantitative data will be collected at baseline and follow-up. Qualitative data using semistructured interviews will be collected postintervention and weekly, using participant diaries. Finally, we will explore a model of cost-effectiveness to apply in the subsequent full-scale trial. This feasibility study is a necessary step in the development of a complex, individualised, psychosocial intervention. The data gathered will allow logistical and theoretical processes to be refined in preparation for a full-scale RCT.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained in all three participating countries. Results of the field trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.</jats:sec

    Regional variation in practitioner employment in general practices in England: a comparative analysis

    Get PDF
    Background In recent years, UK health policy makers have responded to a GP shortage by introducing measures to support increased healthcare delivery by practitioners from a wider range of backgrounds. Aim To ascertain the composition of the primary care workforce in England at a time when policy changes affecting deployment of different practitioner types are being introduced. Design and setting This study was a comparative analysis of workforce data reported to NHS Digital by GP practices in England. Method Statistics are reported using practice-level data from the NHS Digital June 2019 data extract. Because of the role played by Health Education England (HEE) in training and increasing the skills of a healthcare workforce that meets the needs of each region, the analysis compares average workforce composition across the 13 HEE regions in England Results The workforce participation in terms of full-time equivalent of each staff group across HEE regions demonstrates regional variation. Differences persist when expressed as mean full-time equivalent per thousand patients. Despite policy changes, most workers are employed in long-established primary care roles, with only a small proportion of newer types of practitioner, such as pharmacists, paramedics, physiotherapists, and physician associates. Conclusion This study provides analysis of a more detailed and complete primary care workforce dataset than has previously been available in England. In describing the workforce composition at this time, the study provides a foundation for future comparative analyses of changing practitioner deployment before the introduction of primary care networks, and for evaluating outcomes and costs that may be associated with these changes
    corecore