scholarly journals Self-Management of Hip Osteoarthritis Five Years After a Cycling and Education Treatment Pathway

Healthcare ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Wainwright ◽  
Louise C. Burgess ◽  
Tikki Immins ◽  
Robert G. Middleton
Keyword(s):  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Education Programme ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Pathway ◽  
Patient Reported

The Cycling against Hip Pain (CHAIN) programme is a six-week cycling and education treatment pathway for people with hip osteoarthritis. Preliminary results demonstrated significant improvements in clinical and patient-reported outcome measures following the course. Whilst the benefits of exercise for osteoarthritis are often reported in the short term, less is known about the long-term effects for this patient group. This study explores whether participants continued to self-manage their hip osteoarthritis five years after completing the course. A cross-sectional survey was conducted to collect data from participants who completed the CHAIN programme between October 2013 and February 2015 (n = 96). Questionnaires were sent by post in April 2019, and then non-responders were followed up again four weeks later. Eighty-three (87%) participants responded to the survey. Five years (range 4–6) after completion of a six-week cycling and education programme, 37 (45%) participants had not returned to their general practitioner for further treatment of their hip pain, and 47 (57%) had not pursued surgical intervention. All participants were still engaged in at least one physical activity per week and many reported that they had purchased a bike (29%), joined a gym (30%) or cycled regularly (indoor cycling 25%, outdoor cycling 24%). Eighty (96%) participants reported an increase in knowledge of self-managing their symptoms. The findings from this study suggest that many patients are motivated to self-manage their hip osteoarthritis, five years following a six-week cycling and education treatment pathway that encourages lifestyle change.

scholarly journals General practitioners’ views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace M Turner ◽  
Ian Litchfield ◽  
Sam Finnikin ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Melanie Calvert
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Systems

Abstract Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand the current use of PROMs in primary care, barriers and facilitators, and how their use might be optimised. Methods Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs. Results Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n=66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n=62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care. Conclusion Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

scholarly journals Patient-reported Outcome Measures After Hospitalization During the COVID-19 Pandemic, a Survey Among COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Patients.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matan Elkan ◽  
Ayana Dvir ◽  
Ronit Zaidenstein ◽  
Maly Keller ◽  
Dana Kagansky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality

Abstract Background: Many people recovering from COVID-19 suffer from long-term sequelae. The objective of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in COVID-19 patients a few months after discharge. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional case-control study on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pneumonia patients admitted to Shamir Medical Center, Israel (03-07/2020). In the months following discharge, patients were invited to participate in a survey and fill the RAND-36 questionnaire. Patient's characteristics and comorbidities were extracted from electronic charts. Results: Among 66 COVID-19 participants, the median age was 58.5 (IQR 49.8-68.3), 56.1% were female, and more than a third were obese (36.4%). The median length of stay was 7 days (IQR 4-10). Patient-reported outcome measures were reported at a median follow-up of 9-months (IQR 6-9). Pain, general health, vitality, and health change had the lowest scores (67.5, 60, 57.5, and 25 respectively). Matching to patients hospitalized with pneumonia due to other pathogens was performed on 42 of the COVID-19 patients. Non-COVID-19 patients were more frequently current or past smokers (50% vs 11.9%, p<0.01) and suffered more often from chronic lung disease (38.1% vs 9.5%, p=0.01). The score for health change was significantly lower in the COVID-19 group (25 vs 50, p<0.01). Conclusions: Post COVID-19 patients continue to suffer from an assortment of symptoms and perceive a deterioration in their health many months after hospitalization. This emphasizes the importance of prolonged medical follow-up in this population, and the need for additional research to better understand this novel's disease long-term effects.

scholarly journals General practitioners’ views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace M Turner(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Ian Litchfield(New Corresponding Author) ◽  
Sam Finnikin ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Melanie Calvert
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Clinical Systems

Abstract Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.Methods Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.Results Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n=66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n=62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.Conclusion Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

scholarly journals The Correlation of Communication Effectiveness and Patient Satisfaction

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352199883
Author(s):  
Yvonne Versluijs ◽  
Maartje Lemmers ◽  
Laura E. Brown ◽  
Amanda I. Gonzalez ◽  
Joost T. P. Kortlever ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Communication Effectiveness ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Ceiling Effects ◽  
As Relationship ◽  
Current Experience

This study assessed the correlation of 9 questions addressing communication effectiveness (the Communication Effectiveness Questionnaire [CEQ]) with other patient-reported experience measures (PREMs; satisfaction, perceived empathy) as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; pain intensity, activity tolerance) in patients with musculoskeletal illness or injury. In a cross-sectional study, 210 patients visiting an orthopedic surgeon completed the CEQ and measures of satisfaction with the visit, perceived empathy, pain intensity, and activity tolerance. We evaluated correlations between CEQ and other PREMs and CEQ and PROMs. We measured ceiling effects of the PREMs. Communication effectiveness correlated moderately with other PREMs such as satisfaction (ρ = 0.54; P < .001) and perceived empathy (ρ = 0.54; P < .001). Communication effectiveness did not correlate with PROMs: pain intensity (ρ = −0.01; P = .93) and activity tolerance (ρ = −0.05; P = .44). All of the experience measures have high ceiling effects: perceived empathy 37%, satisfaction 80%, and CEQ 46%. The observation of notable correlations of various PREMs, combined with their high ceiling effects, direct us to identify a likely common statistical construct (which we hypothesize as “relationship”) accounting for variation in PREMs, and then develop a PREM which measures that construct in a manner that results in a Gaussian distribution of scores. At least within the limitations of current experience measures, there seems to be no association between illness (PROMs) and experience (PREMs).

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures in hemodialysis patients: results of the first multicenter cross-sectional ePROMs study in France

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdallah Guerraoui ◽  
Mathilde Prezelin-Reydit ◽  
Anne Kolko ◽  
Marie Lino-Daniel ◽  
Charlotte Dumas de Roque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Recovery Time ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Dialysis Session ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cardiovascular Comorbidities ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Kidney failure with replacement therapy and hemodialysis are associated with a decrease in quality of life (QOL). Self-reported QOL symptoms are not always prioritized by the medical team, potentially leading to conflicting priorities with patients. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) allow physicians to better identify these symptoms. The objective was to describe the prevalence of symptoms self-reported by hemodialysis (HD) patients. Methods A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted in three HD centers. Patients were included if they were 18 years old or over treated with HD for at least 3 months in a center. Data were collected by the patient via a self-administered ePROMs questionnaire. Data included patient characteristics, post-dialysis fatigue and intensity, recovery time after a session, perceived stress, impaired sleep the day before the dialysis session, current state of health and the change from the past year. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify relations between symptoms. Results In total, we included 173 patients with a mean age of 66.2 years, a mean ± SD hemodialysis duration of 48.9 ± 58.02 months. The prevalence of fatigue was 72%. 66% had a high level of stress (level B or C). Recovery time was more than 6 h after a HD session for 25% of patients and 78% declared they had a better or unchanged health status than the previous year. Sleep disturbance was associated with cardiovascular comorbidities (OR 5.08 [95% CI, 1.56 to 16.59], p = 0.007). Conclusions Fatigue and stress were the main symptoms reported by HD patients. The patient’s care teams should better consider these symptoms.

scholarly journals Digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for remote monitoring of patients on cancer treatment: a cross-sectional questionnaire feasibility study (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayuran Ananth Sivanandan ◽  
Catherine Sharma ◽  
Pippa Bullard ◽  
Judith Christian
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Pathways ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Oncology has increasing outpatient activity related to increased cancer incidence, better survival rates and more treatments. Innovative technological solutions could help deal with this increasing demand and digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to identify those patients that need a face-to-face (FTF) appointment is one potential approach. OBJECTIVE Our study aimed to assess the feasibility of digital PROM questionnaires to enable remote symptom monitoring for patients on cancer treatment and their ability to determine the requirement for a FTF appointment. METHODS This study was performed at a tertiary oncology centre between December 2018 and February 2019. Target clinics covered both systemic therapy and radiotherapy cohorts. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) helped form the basis for acute toxicity questionnaires which were adapted into patient-friendly language. Treatment-specific digital PROM questionnaires were answered by patients and their clinicians alongside face-to-face appointments. Patients and clinicians did not see each other’s results, which were not used for clinical decisions. Agreement between patients and clinicians was assessed through descriptive statistics. Patient and staff feedback was also obtained. RESULTS 90 patients took part in the study across 10 different treatment pathways. By comparing paired patient and clinician responses, the sensitivity of the patient-completed questionnaires in correctly determining the need for FTF review was 93.6% and no patients with severe toxicity would have been missed with the questionnaires. Digital PROMs revealed 28.9% of participating patients did not need FTF review based on their symptoms. Certain oncological treatment pathways, such as immunotherapy, were found to have a larger proportion of patients with minimal symptoms compared to others, such as conventional chemotherapy. Patient and staff feedback showed high approval with digital PROMs and their potential for use in remote monitoring. CONCLUSIONS Digital PROM questionnaires can feasibly determine the need for FTF review in ‘on treatment’ oncology clinics. Their use with specific treatments could safely reduce the requirement for FTF care and future work should evaluate their application in the remote monitoring of patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document