Dataset Information

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop a values-based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision-making.

Design

Prospective development and feasibility study.

Setting

Primary care practice in Connecticut.

Participants

Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64).

Intervention

The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user-centered design framework-ideate → prototype → test →redesign-to develop and refine the value-based patient priorities care process and medical record template with trained clinician facilitators.

Measurements

We used descriptive statistics of quantitative measures (percentage accepted invitation and completed template, duration of process) and qualitative analysis of barriers and enablers (challenges and solutions identified, facilitator perceptions).

Results

We developed and refined a process for identifying patient health priorities that was typically completed in 35 to 45 minutes over 2 sessions; 64 patients completed the process. Qualitative analyses were used to elucidate the characteristics and training needed for the patient priorities facilitators, as well as perceived benefits and challenges of the process. Refinements based on our experience and feedback include streamlining the process for greater feasibility, balancing fidelity to the process while customizing to individuals, encouraging patients to share their priorities with their clinicians, and simplifying the template transmitted to clinicians.

Conclusion

Trained facilitators conducted this process in a busy primary care practice, suggesting that patient priorities identification is feasible and acceptable, although testing in additional settings is necessary. We hope to show that clinicians can align care with patients' health priorities.

SUBMITTER: Naik AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10185433 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities.

Naik Aanand D AD Dindo Lilian N LN Van Liew Julia R JR Hundt Natalie E NE Vo Lauren L Hernandez-Bigos Kizzy K Esterson Jessica J Geda Mary M Rosen Jonathan J Blaum Caroline S CS Tinetti Mary E ME

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20181003 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To develop a values-based, clinically feasible process to help older adults identify health priorities that can guide clinical decision-making.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective development and feasibility study.<h4>Setting</h4>Primary care practice in Connecticut.<h4>Participants</h4>Older adults with 3 or more conditions or taking 10 or more medications (N=64).<h4>Intervention</h4>The development team of patients, caregivers, and clinicians used a user-centered design framework-idea ...[more]

PMID: 30281794

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is an established body of evidence linking systems of social protection to health systems and health outcomes. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide further emphasis on this linkage as necessary to achieving health and non-health goals. Existing literature on social protection and health has focused primarily on cash transfers. We sought to identify potential research priorities concerning social protection and health in low and middle-income countries, from multiple perspectives.MethodsPriority research questions were identified through two sources: 1) research reviews on social protection interventions and health, 2) interviews with 54 policy makers from Ministries of Health, multi-lateral or bilateral organizations, and NGOs. Data was collated and summarized using a framework analysis approach. The final refining and ranking of the questions was completed by researchers from around the globe through an online platform.ResultsThe overview of reviews identified 5 main categories of social protection interventions: cash transfers; financial incentives and other demand side financing interventions; food aid and nutritional interventions; parental leave; and livelihood/social welfare interventions. Policy-makers focused on the implementation and practice of social protection and health, how social protection programs could be integrated with other sectors, and how they should be monitored/evaluated. A collated list resulted in 31 priority research questions. Scale and sustainability of social protection programs ranked highest. The top 10 research questions focused heavily on design, implementation, and context, with a range of interventions that included cash transfers, social insurance, and labor market interventions.ConclusionsThere is potentially a rich field of enquiry into the linkages between health systems and social protection programs, but research within this field has focused on a few relatively narrowly defined areas. The SDGs provide an impetus to the expansion of research of this nature, with priority setting exercises such as this helping to align funder investment with researcher effort and policy-maker evidence needs.

Project description:Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is vital to guiding global institutions, funders, policymakers, activists and implementers in developing and enacting strategies to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. We undertook a multi-stage participatory process to identify priority research questions relevant to improving accountability within health systems. We conducted interviews (n = 54) and focus group discussions (n = 2) with policymakers from international and national bodies (ministries of health, other government agencies and technical support institutions) across the WHO regions. Respondents were asked to reflect on challenges and current policy discussions related to health systems accountability, and to identify their pressing research needs. We also conducted an overview of reviews (n = 34) to determine the current status of knowledge on health systems accountability and to identify any gaps. We extracted research questions from the policymaker interviews and focus groups (70 questions) and from the overview of reviews (112 questions), and synthesized these into 36 overarching questions. Using the online platform Co-Digital, we invited researchers from around the world to refine and then rank the questions according to research importance. The questions that emerged amongst the top priorities focused on political factors that mediate the adoption or effectiveness of accountability initiatives, processes and incentives that facilitate the acceptability of accountability mechanisms among frontline healthcare providers, and the national governance reforms and contexts that enhance provider accountability. The process revealed different underlying conceptions of social accountability and how best to promote it, with some researchers and policymakers focusing on specific interventions and others embracing a more systems-oriented approach to understanding accountability, the multiple forms that it can take, how these interact with each other and the importance of power and underlying social relations. The findings from this exercise identify HPSR funding priorities and future areas for evidence production and policy engagement.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient Health Priorities Identification (PHPI) is a values-based process in which trained facilitators assist older adults with multiple chronic conditions identify their health priorities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' perceptions of PHPI.DesignQualitative study using thematic analysis.SettingIn-depth semistructured telephone and in-person interviews.ParticipantsTwenty-two older adults who participated in the PHPI process.MeasurementsOpen-ended questions about patient perceptions of the PHPI process, perceived benefits of the process, enablers and barriers to PHPI, and recommendations for process enhancement.ResultsPatient interviews ranged from 9 to 63 minutes (median = 20 min; interquartile range = 15-26). The mean age was 80 years (standard deviation = 7.96), 64% were female, and all patients identified themselves as white. Of the sample, 73% reported no caregiver involvement in their healthcare; 36% lived alone. Most patients felt able to complete the PHPI process with ease. Perceived benefits included increased knowledge and insight into disease processes and treatment options, patient activation, and enhanced communication with family and clinicians. Patients identified several factors that were both enablers and barriers to PHPI including facilitator characteristics, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, social support, relationships between the patient and their primary care provider, and the changing health priorities of the patient. Recommendations for process enhancement included more frequent and flexible facilitator contacts, selection of patients for participation based on specific patient characteristics, clarification of process aims and expectations, involvement of family, written reminders of established health priorities, short duration between facilitation and primary care provider follow-up, and the inclusion of health-related tasks in facilitation visits.ConclusionsPatients found the PHPI process valuable in identifying actionable health priorities and healthcare goals leading to enhanced knowledge, activation, and communication regarding their treatment options and preferences. PHPI may be useful for aligning the healthcare that patients receive with their values-based priorities.

Project description:BackgroundWell-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).ResultsAmong 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.DiscussionTo ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Dataset Information

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Measurements

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development of a Clinically Feasible Process for Identifying Individual Health Priorities.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets