scholarly journals Identifying priority interventions for stroke in Ireland through stakeholder engagement to inform population-based modelling: a mixed methods protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 109
Author(s):  
Eithne Sexton ◽  
Anne Hickey ◽  
David J. Williams ◽  
Frances Horgan ◽  
Elaine Byrne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Target Sample

Introduction Improvements in stroke survival have resulted in increasing numbers of people living with stroke, and with a rapidly evolving evidence-base for stroke prevention and management, there is a need for robust data and evidence to inform future policy decision-making. Population-based modelling and economic evaluation of alternative policy options is a useful tool to support decision making. However, this process must be aligned to key stakeholder priorities. The aim of the proposed research is to engage with stakeholders in Ireland to identify their priorities for the development of stroke prevention and management strategies and policies. Methods The design is iterative, based on mixed methods. Phase 1 involves a qualitative approach for initial priority gathering, based on an open-ended online survey (target sample: 100-120) and interviews (target sample: 34-40). Stakeholders will include: 1) stroke survivors and family member/main carers, 2) healthcare professionals (HCPs) providing stroke care and 3) people working in stroke research, policy and advocacy. These data will be analysed qualitatively, with the aim of identifying a long-list of specific interventions.  Phase 2 involves an interim priority setting exercise, based on a quantitative online survey. Participants will be asked to rank the interventions on the initial long-list.  These rankings will be used to inform a final priority-setting workshop (Phase 3), where a small stakeholder group will decide on the final set of priorities. Discussion The rich and detailed quantitative and qualitative data, based on the views of diverse stakeholders, will be directly relevant to policy makers and service planners involved in developing and improving stroke care in Ireland. The information provided will also be essential to inform the Scenario and Intervention Modelling in Ireland for Stroke (SIMI-Stroke) project, a population-based economic and epidemiological modelling study aimed at identifying cost-effective interventions for stroke across the prevention, acute and post-acute care continuum.

scholarly journals P.024 Educational needs in migraine care: results from a mixed-methods study among Canadian primary care providers and specialists

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (s2) ◽  
pp. S22-S22
Author(s):  
S Peloquin ◽  
E Leroux ◽  
G Shapero ◽  
S Labbe ◽  
S Murray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Structured Interviews

Background: Migraines are sub-optimally treated, affect millions of Canadians, and are underrepresented in medical training. A study was conducted to identify the needs of Canadian Healthcare Providers (HCPs) for migraine education, with the aim to inform the development of learning activities. Methods: This ethics-approved study was deployed in two consecutive phases using a mixed-methods approach. Phase 1 (qualitative) explored the causes of challenges to migraine care via a literature review, input from an expert working group, and semi-structured interviews with multiple stakeholders. Phase 2 (quantitative) validated these causes using an online survey. Results: The study included 103 participants (28 in phase 1; 75 in phase 2): general practitioners=37; neurologists=24; nurses=14; pharmacists=20; administrators, policy influencers and payers=8. Four areas of sub-optimal knowledge were identified: (1) Canadian guidelines, (2) diagnostic criteria, (3) preventive treatment, and (4) non-pharmacological therapies. Attitudinal issues related to the management of migraine patients were also identified. Detailed data including the frequencies of knowledge gaps among general practitioners and general neurologists will be presented along with qualitative findings. Conclusions: Educational activities for general practitioners and general neurologists who treat patients with migraines should be designed to address the four educational needs described in this study.

Study protocols for the development and randomized controlled pilot trial of a patient decision aid to facilitate women's choice between oral and LAI ART for HIV (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan M. Philbin ◽  
Tara McCrimmon ◽  
Victoria Shaffer ◽  
Deanna Kerrigan ◽  
Margaret Pereyra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Decision

BACKGROUND Many women with HIV (WWH) have suboptimal adherence to oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) due to multilevel barriers to HIV care access and retention. A long-acting injectable (LAI) version of ART was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2021 and has the potential to overcome many of these barriers by eliminating the need for daily pill-taking. However, it may not be optimal for all WWH. It is critical to develop tools that facilitate patient-provider shared decision making about oral versus LAI ART modalities to promote women’s adherence and long-term HIV outcomes. OBJECTIVE This study will develop and pilot test a web-based patient decision aid, called i.ART+support (iARTs). This decision aid aims to support shared decision-making between WWH and their providers, and help women choose between oral and LAI HIV treatment. METHODS The study will occur in three phases. In Phase 1, we will utilize a mixed-methods approach to collect data from WWH and medical and social service providers to inform i.ARTs content. During Phase 2, we will conduct focus groups with WWH and providers to refine i.ARTs content and develop the web-based decision aid. In Phase 3, i.ARTs will be tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with n=180 women in Miami, FL and assessed for feasibility, usability and acceptability, as well as to evaluate the associations between receiving i.ARTs and viral suppression, ART refills, and clinic attendance. RESULTS Phase 1 participant recruitment began in September 2021. CONCLUSIONS This study is the first to develop a web-based patient decision aid to support WWH choices between oral and LAI ART. Its strengths include the incorporation of both patient and provider perspectives, a mixed-methods design, and implementation in a real-world clinical setting. CLINICALTRIAL We will apply for Clinicaltrials.gov registration prior to Phase 3 when we enroll our first participant in the RCT. This is anticipated to occur in April 2023.

scholarly journals What older adults and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions at home: a participatory mixed methods protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e039102
Author(s):  
Claudia Lai ◽  
Paul Holyoke ◽  
Karine V Plourde ◽  
Simon Décary ◽  
France Légaré
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Home Care ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Health Related

IntroductionShared decision making is an interpersonal process whereby healthcare providers collaborate with and support patients in decision-making. Older adults receiving home care need support with decision-making. We will explore what older adults receiving home care and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions.Methods and analysisThis two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods study will be conducted in a pan-Canadian healthcare organisation, SE Health. First, we will create a participant advisory group to advise us throughout the research process. In phase 1 (qualitative), we will recruit a convenience sample of 15–30 older adults and caregivers receiving home care to participate in open-ended semi-structured interviews. Phase 1 participants will be invited to share what health-related decisions they face at home and what they need for making better decisions. In phase 2 (quantitative), interdisciplinary health and social care providers will be invited to answer a web-based survey to share their views on the decisional needs of older adults and their caregivers. The survey will include questions informed by findings from qualitative interviews in phase 1, and a workbook for assessing decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Finally, qualitative and quantitative results will be triangulated (by methods, investigator, theory and source) to develop a comprehensive understanding of decision-making needs from the perspective of older adults, caregivers and health and social care providers. We will use the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research guidelines and the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Southlake Regional Health Centre and Université Laval. This study will inform the design of decision support interventions. Further dissemination plans include summary briefs for study participants, tailored reports for home care decision makers and policy makers, and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT04327830.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making in stroke: an evolving approach to improved patient care

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa J Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Stroke Care ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cultural Aspects

Shared decision-making (SDM) occurs when patients, families and clinicians consider patients’ values and preferences alongside the best medical evidence and partner to make the best decision for a given patient in a specific scenario. SDM is increasingly promoted within Western contexts and is also being explored outside such settings, including in China. SDM and tools to promote SDM can improve patients’ knowledge/understanding, participation in the decision-making process, satisfaction and trust in the healthcare team. SDM has also proposed long-term benefits to patients, clinicians, organisations and healthcare systems. To successfully perform SDM, clinicians must know their patients’ values and goals and the evidence underlying different diagnostic and treatment options. This is relevant for decisions throughout stroke care, from thrombolysis to goals of care, diagnostic assessments, rehabilitation strategies, and secondary stroke prevention. Various physician, patient, family, cultural and system barriers to SDM exist. Strategies to overcome these barriers and facilitate SDM include clinician motivation, patient participation, adequate time and tools to support the process, such as decision aids. Although research about SDM in stroke care is lacking, decision aids are available for select decisions, such as anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Future research is needed regarding both cultural aspects of successful SDM and application of SDM to stroke-specific contexts.

Would you Make the Right Decision? – Decision Making Biases in Economy - Related Dilemmas

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
Zsuzsanna Gödör ◽  
Georgina Szabó
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Framing Effect ◽  
Economic Knowledge ◽  
Bank Account ◽  
Financial Decisions ◽  
Hungarian Population ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Decision Making Biases

Abstract As they say, money can’t buy happiness. However, the lack of it can make people’s lives much harder. From the moment we open our first bank account, we have to make lots of financial decisions in our life. Should I save some money or should I spend it? Is it a good idea to ask for a loan? How to invest my money? When we make such decisions, unfortunately we sometimes make mistakes, too. In this study, we selected seven common decision making biases - anchoring and adjustment, overconfidence, high optimism, the law of small numbers, framing effect, disposition effect and gambler’s fallacy – and tested them on the Hungarian population via an online survey. In the focus of our study was the question whether the presence of economic knowledge helps people make better decisions? The decision making biases found in literature mostly appeared in the sample as well. It proves that people do apply them when making decisions and in certain cases this could result in serious and costly errors. That’s why it would be absolutely important for people to learn about them, thus increasing their awareness and attention when making decisions. Furthermore, in our research we did find some connection between decisions and the knowledge of economics, people with some knowledge of economics opted for the better solution in bigger proportion

scholarly journals A Better Learning Community: Mixed-Methods Reveal Medical Student Preferences with Implications for Learning Community Design and Implementation

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 238212052110148
Author(s):  
Jasna Vuk ◽  
Steven McKee ◽  
Sara Tariq ◽  
Priya Mendiratta
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Learning Community ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Free Form ◽  
University Of Arkansas ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Personal Support ◽  
School Learning ◽  
The University

Background: Medical school learning communities benefit students. The College of Medicine (COM) at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) provides medical students with academic, professional, and personal support through a learning community (LC) made of 7 academic houses. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of the academic house model at UAMS utilizing a mixed-methods survey. The aims were to: (1) assess student experience and satisfaction with academic houses, (2) describe the realms of advising and guidance, and (3) identify areas for improvement. Method: An online survey was assigned to 723 COM students (all students enrolled, first through fourth years) at UAMS in March 2019. The survey was comprised of 25 items (10 multiple-choice, 8 on the Likert scale, and 7 open-ended questions). Data was depicted using frequency and percentages and/or thematic review of free-form responses. Results: The survey response rate was 31% (227 students). The majority of students responding (132, 58.1%) attended 2 or more face-to-face meetings with the faculty advisor within the preceding year. However, 27 (11.9%) students did not have any meetings. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the guidance and direction provided by their advisors [very satisfied (n = 83; 36.6%); satisfied (n = 77; 33.9%)]. Themes that emerged from student generated areas for improvement include time constraints, advisor/advisee interest mismatch, and perceived inadequacy of advising content/connections. Conclusions: This study confirms the effectiveness of the LC model for advising and mentoring in the COM at UAMS. Uniquely, this study identifies not only learners’ satisfaction with their LC but also highlights areas for improvement which are widely generalizable and important to consider for institutions with or planning to start an LC.

scholarly journals Impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases in the UK: a mixed-methods study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e048772
Author(s):  
Toby O Smith ◽  
Pippa Belderson ◽  
Jack R Dainty ◽  
Linda Birt ◽  
Karen Durrant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Healthcare Provision ◽  
Social Restriction ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesTo determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures on people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to explore how people adapted to these measures over time.DesignMixed-methods investigation comprising a national online longitudinal survey and embedded qualitative study.SettingUK online survey and interviews with community-dwelling individuals in the East of England.ParticipantsPeople in the UK with RMDs were invited to participate in an online survey. A subsection of respondents were invited to participate in the embedded qualitative study.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe online survey, completed fortnightly over 10 weeks from April 2020 to August 2020, investigated changes in symptoms, social isolation and loneliness, resilience and optimism. Qualitative interviews were undertaken assessing participant’s perspectives on changes in symptoms, exercising, managing instrumental tasks such a shopping, medication and treatment regimens and how they experienced changes in their social networks.Results703 people with RMDs completed the online survey. These people frequently reported a deterioration in symptoms as a result of COVID-19 pandemic social restrictions (52% reported increase vs 6% reported a decrease). This was significantly worse for those aged 18–60 years compared with older participants (p=0.017). The qualitative findings from 26 individuals with RMDs suggest that the greatest change in daily life was experienced by those in employment. Although some retired people reported reduced opportunity for exercise outside their homes, they did not face the many competing demands experienced by employed people and people with children at home.ConclusionsPeople with RMDs reported a deterioration in symptoms when COVID-19 pandemic social restriction measures were enforced. This was worse for working-aged people. Consideration of this at-risk group, specifically for the promotion of physical activity, changing home-working practices and awareness of healthcare provision is important, as social restrictions continue in the UK.

scholarly journals THU0647-HPR SHARED DECISION MAKING AMONGST RHEUMATOLOGISTS IN TRAINING IN THE NETHERLANDS: WHERE DO WE STAND?

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
The Subject

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document