The health literate health care organization 10 item questionnaire (HLHO-10): development and validation

Abstract Background While research on individual health literacy is steadily increasing, less attention has been paid to the context of care that may help to increase the patient’s ability to navigate health care or to compensate for their limited health literacy. In 2012, Brach et al. introduced the concept of health literate health care organizations (HLHOs) to describe the organizational context of care. This paper presents our effort in developing and validating an HLHO instrument. Method Ten items were developed to represent the ten attributes of HLHO (HLHO-10) based on a literature review, an expert workshop, a focus group discussion, and qualitative interviews. The instrument was applied in a key informant survey in 51 German hospitals as part of a larger study on patient information and training needs (PIAT-study). Item properties were analyzed and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the instrument’s unidimensionality. To investigate the instrument’s predictive validity, a multilevel analysis was performed that used the HLHO-10 score to predict the adequacy of information provided to 1,224 newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients treated at the sample hospitals. Results Cronbach’s α of the resulting scale was 0.89. CFA verified the one-factor structure after allowing for the correlation for four pairs of error terms. In the multilevel model, HLHO-10 significantly predicted the adequacy of information as perceived by patients. Conclusion The instrument has satisfactory reliability and validity. It provides a useful tool to assess the degree to which health care organizations help patients to navigate, understand, and use information and services. Further validation should include participant observation in health care organizations and a sample that is not limited to breast cancer care.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110523/1/12913_2015_Article_707.pd

Meeting patients’ health information needs in breast cancer center hospitals – a multilevel analysis

Abstract Background Breast cancer patients are confronted with a serious diagnosis that requires them to make important decisions throughout the journey of the disease. For these decisions to be made it is critical that the patients be well informed. Previous studies have been consistent in their findings that breast cancer patients have a high need for information on a wide range of topics. This paper investigates (1) how many patients feel they have unmet information needs after initial surgery, (2) whether the proportion of patients with unmet information needs varies between hospitals where they were treated and (3) whether differences between the hospitals account for some of these variation. Methods Data from 5,024 newly-diagnosed breast cancer patients treated in 111 breast center hospitals in Germany were analyzed and combined with data on hospital characteristics. Multilevel linear regression models were calculated taking into account hospital characteristics and adjusting for patient case mix. Results Younger patients, those receiving mastectomy, having statutory health insurance, not living with a partner and having a foreign native language report higher unmet information needs. The data demonstrate small between-hospital variation in unmet information needs. In hospitals that provide patient-specific information material and that offer health fairs as well as those that are non-teaching or have lower patient-volume, patients are less likely to report unmet information needs. Conclusion We found differences in proportions of patients with unmet information needs between hospitals and that hospitals’ structure and process-related attributes of the hospitals were associated with these differences to some extent. Hospitals may contribute to reducing the patients’ information needs by means that are not necessarily resource-intensive.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109539/1/12913_2014_Article_601.pd

Shifting cancer care towards Multidisciplinarity: the cancer center certification program of the German cancer society

Background: Over the last decades numerous initiatives have been set up that aim at translating the best available medical knowledge and treatment into clinical practice. The inherent complexity of the programs and discrepancies in the terminology used make it difficult to appreciate each of them distinctly and compare their specific strengths and weaknesses. To allow comparison and stimulate dialogue between different programs, we in this paper provide an overview of the German Cancer Society certification program for multidisciplinary cancer centers that was established in 2003. Main body: In the early 2000s the German Cancer Society assessed the available information on quality of cancer care in Germany and concluded that there was a definite need for a comprehensive, transparent and evidence-based system of quality assessment and control. This prompted the development and implementation of a voluntary cancer center certification program that was promoted by scientific societies, health-care providers, and patient advocacy groups and based on guidelines of the highest quality level (S3). The certification system structures the entire process of care from prevention to screening and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer and places multidisciplinary teams at the heart of this program. Within each network of providers, the quality of care is documented using tumor-specific quality indicators. The system started with breast cancer centers in 2003 and colorectal cancer centers in 2006. In 2017, certification systems are established for the majority of cancers. Here we describe the rationale behind the certification program, its history, the development of the certification requirements, the process of data collection, and the certification process as an example for the successful implementation of a voluntary but powerful system to ensure and improve quality of cancer care. Conclusion: Since 2003, over 1 million patients had their primary tumors treated in a certified center. There are now over 1200 sites for different tumor entities in four countries that have been certified in accordance with the program and transparently report their results from multidisciplinary treatment for a substantial proportion of cancers. This led to a fundamental change in the structure of cancer care in Germany and neighboring countries within one decade

Mast Cell-Derived Histamine Mediates Cystitis Pain

Background: Mast cells trigger inflammation that is associated with local pain, but the mechanisms mediating pain are unclear. Interstitial cystitis (IC) is a bladder disease that causes debilitating pelvic pain of unknown origin and without consistent inflammation, but IC symptoms correlate with elevated bladder lamina propria mast cell counts. We hypothesized that mast cells mediate pelvic pain directly and examined pain behavior using a murine model that recapitulates key aspects of IC. Methods and Findings: Infection of mice with pseudorabies virus (PRV) induces a neurogenic cystitis associated with lamina propria mast cell accumulation dependent upon tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF), TNF-mediated bladder barrier dysfunction, and pelvic pain behavior, but the molecular basis for pelvic pain is unknown. In this study, both PRV-induced pelvic pain and bladder pathophysiology were abrogated in mast cell-deficient mice but were restored by reconstitution with wild type bone marrow. Pelvic pain developed normally in TNF- and TNF receptor-deficient mice, while bladder pathophysiology was abrogated. Conversely, genetic or pharmacologic disruption of histamine receptor H1R or H2R attenuated pelvic pain without altering pathophysiology. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that mast cells promote cystitis pain and bladder pathophysiology through the separable actions of histamine and TNF, respectively. Therefore, pain is independent of pathology and inflammation, an

Oncological treatment - What constitutes quality and how can this be collated?

The study of Kampfenkel et al. investigated whether differences in overall survival could be found in patients with intestinal cancer who were treated in certified centers compared to those treated in non-certified hospitals. We consider some of the limitations of the study, which we believe must be taken into account when interpreting the results of these and similar future studies. Although secondary data evaluations with matched claims and register data can be fundamentally valuable for the description of the health care reality, standards are urgently needed to facilitate the classification of the results and to avoid misleading interpretations

Different Approaches for Case-Mix Adjustment of Patient-Reported Outcomes to Compare Healthcare Providers-Methodological Results of a Systematic Review

Simple Summary Patient-reported outcomes need to be reported with case-mix adjustment in order to allow fair comparison between healthcare providers. This systematic review identified different approaches to case-mix adjustment, with wide variation between the various approaches. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used to compare the quality of outcomes between different healthcare providers (medical practices, hospitals, rehabilitation facilities). However, such comparisons can only be fair if differences in the case-mix between different types of provider are taken into account. This can be achieved with adequate statistical case-mix adjustment (CMA). To date, there is a lack of overview studies on current CMA methods for PROs. The aim of this study was to investigate which approaches are currently used to report and examine PROs for case-mix-adjusted comparison between providers. A systematic MEDLINE literature search was conducted (February 2021). The results were examined by two reviewers. Articles were included if they compared (a) different healthcare providers using (b) case-mix-adjusted (c) patient-reported outcomes (all AND conditions). From 640 hits obtained, 11 articles were included in the analysis. A wide variety of patient characteristics were used as adjustors, and baseline PRO scores and basic sociodemographic and clinical information were included in all models. Overall, the adjustment models used vary considerably. This evaluation is an initial attempt to systematically investigate different CMA approaches for PROs. As a standardized approach has not yet been established, we suggest creating a consensus-based methodological guideline for case-mix adjustment of PROs