Dataset Information

Evaluation of Complexity Measurement Tools for Correlations with Health-Related Outcomes, Health Care Costs and Impacts on Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review.

ABSTRACT: Various tools to measure patient complexity have been developed. Primary care physicians often deal with patient complexity. However, their usefulness in primary care settings is unclear. This study explored complexity measurement tools in general adult and patient populations to investigate the correlations between patient complexity and outcomes, including health-related patient outcomes, healthcare costs, and impacts on healthcare providers. We used a five-stage scoping review framework, searching MEDLINE and CINAHL, including reference lists of identified studies. A total of 21 patient complexity management tools were found. Twenty-five studies examined the correlation between patient complexity and health-related patient outcomes, two examined healthcare costs, and one assessed impacts on healthcare providers. No studies have considered sharing information or action plans with multidisciplinary teams while measuring outcomes for complex patients. Of the tools, eleven used face-to-face interviews, seven extracted data from medical records, and three used self-assessments. The evidence of correlations between patient complexity and outcomes was insufficient for clinical implementation. Self-assessment tools might be convenient for conducting further studies. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to develop effective intervention protocols. Further research is required to determine these correlations in primary care settings.

SUBMITTER: Kaneko H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9741446 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of Complexity Measurement Tools for Correlations with Health-Related Outcomes, Health Care Costs and Impacts on Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review.

Kaneko Hiromitsu H Hanamoto Akiko A Yamamoto-Kataoka Sachiko S Kataoka Yuki Y Aoki Takuya T Shirai Kokoro K Iso Hiroyasu H

International journal of environmental research and public health 20221201 23

Various tools to measure patient complexity have been developed. Primary care physicians often deal with patient complexity. However, their usefulness in primary care settings is unclear. This study explored complexity measurement tools in general adult and patient populations to investigate the correlations between patient complexity and outcomes, including health-related patient outcomes, healthcare costs, and impacts on healthcare providers. We used a five-stage scoping review framework, sear ...[more]

PMID: 36498188

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe social determinants of health have been gaining recognition, confirming that multidimensional biopsychosocial assessment is essential to improving the health of individuals. This trend has led to the development of conceptual models and measurement tools assessing 'patient complexity', understood as a complex interplay of biopsychosocial factors, to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of care; however, the variety of meanings encompassed by the term has led to confusion in the interpretation of patient complexity such that there is no consensus regarding the definition or conceptualisation of patient complexity. The primary objective of this scoping review is to identify and map what is known about the key characteristics of patient complexity through multiple database searches.Methods and analysisThis study will follow an established framework for conducting scoping reviews. The data will be extracted through searches of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Included articles will have: investigated participants aged 19 years or older, with any health condition; described patient complexity, a model for patient complexity, or a measurement tool for patient complexity; and been published in English from 1 January 1970 to April 2022. Article selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers and if necessary for consensus, a third reviewer. A descriptive summary will be prepared to explain how the results apply to the scoping review questions. The findings will be a detailed mapping of the health dimensions that emerge from the classification of the extracted data. Subsequently, a definition of patient complexity will be developed.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not require ethical approval, as we will use publicly available data. The study findings will be disseminated through a relevant conference presentation and a peer-reviewed journal. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/hpa3c).

Project description:In the era of vaccine hesitancy, highlighted by the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic, there is an acute need to develop an approach to reduce and address apprehension towards vaccinations. We sought to map and present an overview of existing educational interventions for healthcare providers (HCPs) on strategies to engage in effective vaccine discussion. We applied the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology framework in this scoping review. We searched five relevant databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS) and grey literature through the Google search engine using keywords and subject headings that were systematically identified. We identified 3384 citations in peer-reviewed literature and 41 citations in grey literature. After screening for our inclusion criteria, we included 28 citations from peer reviewed literature and 16 citations from grey literature for analysis. We identified a total of 41 unique education interventions. Interventions were available from multiple disciplines, training levels, clinical settings, and diseases/vaccines. Interventions predominantly centered around two foci: knowledge sharing and communication training. Most interventions identified from peer-reviewed literature were facilitated and were applied with multiple modes of delivery. Interventions from grey literature were more topical and generally self-directed. We identified several gaps in knowledge. Firstly, accessibility and generalizability of interventions was limited. Secondly, distribution of interventions did not adequately address nursing and pharmacy disciplines, and did not cover the breadth of medical specialties for whom vaccine discussions apply. Thirdly, no interventions addressed self monitoring and the clinicians' recognition and management of emotions during difficult conversations. There is a need to address this gap and provide available, credible and comprehensive educational interventions that will support our healthcare providers in effective communication with vaccine hesitant patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify existing evidence concerning the cost of dissemination and implementation (D&I) strategies in community, public health and health service research, mapped with the 'Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change' (ERIC) taxonomy.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify any English language reports that had been published between January 2008 and December 2019 concerning the cost of D&I strategies.Data extractionWe matched the strategies identified in each article using ERIC taxonomies; further classified them into five areas (eg, dissemination, implementation, integration, capacity building and scale-up); and extracted the corresponding costs (total costs and cots per action target and per evidence-based programme (EBP) participant). We also recorded the reported level of costing methodology used for cost assessment of D&I strategies.ResultsOf the 6445 articles identified, 52 studies were eligible for data extraction. Lack of D&I strategy cost data was the predominant reason (55% of the excluded studies) for study exclusion. Predominant topic, setting, country and research design in the included studies were mental health (19%), primary care settings (44%), the US (35%) and observational (42%). Thirty-five (67%) studies used multicomponent D&I strategies (ranging from two to five discrete strategies). The most frequently applied strategies were Conduct ongoing training (50%) and Conduct educational meetings (23%). Adoption (42%) and reach (27%) were the two most frequently assessed outcomes. The overall costs of Conduct ongoing training ranged from $199 to $105 772 ($1-$13 973 per action target and $0.02-$412 per EBP participant); whereas the cost of Conduct educational meetings ranged from $987 to $1.1-$2.9 million/year ($33-$54 869 per action target and $0.2-$146 per EBP participant). The wide range of costs was due to the varying scales of the studies, intended audiences/diseases and the complexities of the strategy components. Most studies presented limited information on costing methodology, making interpretation difficult.ConclusionsThe quantity of published D&I strategy cost analyses is increasing, yet guidance on conducting and reporting of D&I strategy cost analysis is necessary to facilitate and promote the application of comparative economic evaluation in the field of D&I research.

Project description:BackgroundHealth research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study.ObjectiveTo locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships.MethodsWe searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.ResultsWe screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research.ConclusionThis large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Project description:BackgroundCompassion is closely linked to psychological well-being, and several assessment tools have been developed and studied to assess the level of compassion in different populations and for more precise measurement. There is currently a scarcity of comprehensive knowledge about compassion-related assessment tools, and our research provides an overview of these tools.AimsTo identify scales used to measure compassion from different flows, and to assess their measurement properties and quality.MethodsFocusing on compassion assessment tools, the authors conducted a thorough search of 10 Chinese and English databases from their establishment until August 14, 2022. Data extracted included the author, year, country, objectives, target population, as well as the primary evaluation content. Using the COSMIN checklist, the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included studies were appraised. This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework and followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist.ResultsThere were 15,965 papers searched, and 36 compassion-related measurement tools were identified in this study. None of the 36 studies provided possessed all nine psychometric properties, as outlined by the COSMIN criteria. On the basis of a systematic evaluation of quality, measurement qualities were ranked. The results for internal consistency and content validity were relatively favorable, whereas the results for structural validity were variable and the results for the remaining attributes were either uncertain or negative. A Venn diagram was used to illustrate the overlapping groups of compassion measurement tools based on the three-way flow of compassion. An overview of the reference instrument and theoretical basis for the included studies was provided, and half of them did not contain any theoretical or scale-based evidence.ConclusionIn this study, 36 compassion-related measuring instruments were identified, and the methodological quality and measurement properties of the included studies were acceptable. The included measurements were consistent with flows of compassion. A further focus of further research should be on developing theories in the compassion domain and developing instruments for measuring compassion that are multidimensional, multi-populations, and culturally relevant.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Complexity Measurement Tools for Correlations with Health-Related Outcomes, Health Care Costs and Impacts on Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review.

Publications

Evaluation of Complexity Measurement Tools for Correlations with Health-Related Outcomes, Health Care Costs and Impacts on Healthcare Providers: A Scoping Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets