Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process - An example of information needs of patients with rare diseases

Background: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used to measure patient priorities. Studies have shown that there are several different approaches to data acquisition and data aggregation. The aim of this study was to measure the information needs of patients having a rare disease and to analyze the effects of these different AHP approaches. The ranking of information needs is then used to display information categories on a web-based information portal about rare diseases according to the patient's priorities. Methods: The information needs of patients suffering from rare diseases were identified by an Internet research study and a preliminary qualitative study. Hence, we designed a three-level hierarchy containing 13 criteria. For data acquisition, the differences in outcomes were investigated using individual versus group judgements separately. Furthermore, we analyzed the different effects when using the median and arithmetic and geometric means for data aggregation. A consistency ratio ≤0.2 was determined to represent an acceptable consistency level. Results: Forty individual and three group judgements were collected from patients suffering from a rare disease and their close relatives. The consistency ratio of 31 individual and three group judgements was acceptable and thus these judgements were included in the study. To a large extent, the local ranks for individual and group judgements were similar. Interestingly, group judgements were in a significantly smaller range than individual judgements. According to our data, the ranks of the criteria differed slightly according to the data aggregation method used. Conclusions: It is important to explain and justify the choice of an appropriate method for data acquisition because response behaviors differ according to the method. We conclude that researchers should select a suitable method based on the thematic perspective or investigated topics in the study. Because the arithmetic mean is very vulnerable to outliers, the geometric mean and the median seem to be acceptable alternatives for data aggregation. Overall, using the AHP to identify patient priorities and enhance the user-friendliness of information websites offers an important contribution to medical informatics.BMB

Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases

BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality

Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases

BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality

Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians

Background: Despite diverging definitions on rare conditions, people suffering from rare diseases share similar difficulties. A lack of experience by health professionals, a long wait from first symptoms to diagnosis, scarce medical and scientific knowledge, and unsatisfactory treatment options all trigger the search for health information by patients, family members, and physicians. Examining and systematically integrating stakeholder needs can help design information platforms that effectively support this search. Objective: The aim of this study was to innovate on the group decision-making process involving patients, family members, and physicians for the establishment of a national rare disease Internet platform. We determined differences in the relevance of health information—especially examining quantifiable preference weights—between these subgroups and elucidated the structure and distribution of these differences in people suffering from rare diseases, their family members, and physicians, thus providing information crucial to their collaboration. Methods: The included items were identified using a systematic Internet research and verified through a qualitative interview study. The identified major information needs included medical issues, research, social help offers, and current events. These categories further comprised sublevels of diagnosis, therapy, general disease pattern, current studies, study results, registers, psychosocial counseling, self-help, and sociolegal advice. The analytic hierarchy process was selected as the group decision-making tool. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the stability and distribution of results. t tests were utilized to examine the results’ significance. Results: A total of 176 questionnaires were collected; we excluded some questionnaires in line with our chosen consistency level of 0.2. Ultimately, 120 patients, 24 family members, and 32 physicians participated in the study (48 men and 128 women, mean age=48 years, age range=17-87 years). Rankings and preference weights were highly heterogeneous. Global ranking positions of patients, family members, and physicians are shown in parentheses, as follows: medical issues (3/4, 4, 4), research (3/4, 2/3, 3), social help offers (1, 2/3, 2), and current events (2, 1, 1); diagnosis (6, 8, 9), therapy (5, 9, 7), general disease pattern (9, 4/5/6, 6), current studies (7, 4/5/6, 3), study results (8, 7, 8), registers (4, 1, 5), psychosocial counseling (1, 2, 4), self-help (3, 3, 2), and sociolegal advice (2, 4/5/6, 1). Differences were verified for patients for 5 information categories (P=.03), physicians for 6 information categories (P=.03), and family members for 4 information categories (P=.04). Conclusions: Our results offer a clear-cut information structure that can transparently translate group decisions into practice. Furthermore, we found different preference structures for rare disease information among patients, family members, and physicians. Some websites already address differences in comprehension between those subgroups. Similar to pharmaceutical companies, health information providers on rare diseases should also acknowledge different information needs to improve the accessibility of information

Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To provide a global, up-to-date picture of the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients and compare Candida with bacterial bloodstream infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in the ICU Study (EPIC II). Demographic, physiological, infection-related and therapeutic data were collected. Patients were grouped as having Candida, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and combined Candida/bacterial bloodstream infection. Outcome data were assessed at intensive care unit and hospital discharge. SETTING: EPIC II included 1265 intensive care units in 76 countries. PATIENTS: Patients in participating intensive care units on study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 14,414 patients in EPIC II, 99 patients had Candida bloodstream infections for a prevalence of 6.9 per 1000 patients. Sixty-one patients had candidemia alone and 38 patients had combined bloodstream infections. Candida albicans (n = 70) was the predominant species. Primary therapy included monotherapy with fluconazole (n = 39), caspofungin (n = 16), and a polyene-based product (n = 12). Combination therapy was infrequently used (n = 10). Compared with patients with Gram-positive (n = 420) and Gram-negative (n = 264) bloodstream infections, patients with candidemia were more likely to have solid tumors (p < .05) and appeared to have been in an intensive care unit longer (14 days [range, 5-25 days], 8 days [range, 3-20 days], and 10 days [range, 2-23 days], respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scores were similar between groups. Patients with Candida bloodstream infections, compared with patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bloodstream infections, had the greatest crude intensive care unit mortality rates (42.6%, 25.3%, and 29.1%, respectively) and longer intensive care unit lengths of stay (median [interquartile range]) (33 days [18-44], 20 days [9-43], and 21 days [8-46], respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Candidemia remains a significant problem in intensive care units patients. In the EPIC II population, Candida albicans was the most common organism and fluconazole remained the predominant antifungal agent used. Candida bloodstream infections are associated with high intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates and resource use

Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study

To provide a global, up-to-date picture of the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients and compare Candida with bacterial bloodstream infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in the ICU Study (EPIC II). Demographic, physiological, infection-related and therapeutic data were collected. Patients were grouped as having Candida, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and combined Candida/bacterial bloodstream infection. Outcome data were assessed at intensive care unit and hospital discharge. SETTING: EPIC II included 1265 intensive care units in 76 countries. PATIENTS: Patients in participating intensive care units on study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 14,414 patients in EPIC II, 99 patients had Candida bloodstream infections for a prevalence of 6.9 per 1000 patients. Sixty-one patients had candidemia alone and 38 patients had combined bloodstream infections. Candida albicans (n = 70) was the predominant species. Primary therapy included monotherapy with fluconazole (n = 39), caspofungin (n = 16), and a polyene-based product (n = 12). Combination therapy was infrequently used (n = 10). Compared with patients with Gram-positive (n = 420) and Gram-negative (n = 264) bloodstream infections, patients with candidemia were more likely to have solid tumors (p < .05) and appeared to have been in an intensive care unit longer (14 days [range, 5-25 days], 8 days [range, 3-20 days], and 10 days [range, 2-23 days], respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scores were similar between groups. Patients with Candida bloodstream infections, compared with patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bloodstream infections, had the greatest crude intensive care unit mortality rates (42.6%, 25.3%, and 29.1%, respectively) and longer intensive care unit lengths of stay (median [interquartile range]) (33 days [18-44], 20 days [9-43], and 21 days [8-46], respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Candidemia remains a significant problem in intensive care units patients. In the EPIC II population, Candida albicans was the most common organism and fluconazole remained the predominant antifungal agent used. Candida bloodstream infections are associated with high intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates and resource use