Different communication strategies for disclosing results of diagnostic prenatal testing

Methods for informing people with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease of their diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), causes increasing physical impairment and disability. People with ALS/MND face huge physical challenges, and the diagnosis can be a source of great psychological distress for both people with ALS/MND and their carers. In such a context, how news of the diagnosis is broken is important. At present, there are no systematic reviews of methods for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects and effectiveness of different methods for informing people of a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease (ALS/MND), including effects on the person's knowledge and understanding of their disease, its treatment, and care; and on coping and adjustment to the effects of ALS/MND, its treatment, and care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and two trials registers (February 2022). We contacted individuals or organisations to locate studies. We contacted study authors to obtain additional unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of techniques for informing people with ALS/MND of their diagnosis. We planned to include adults (aged 17 years or over) with ALS/MND, according to the El Escorial criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently reviewed the results of the search to identify RCTs, and three review authors identified non-randomised studies to include in the discussion section. We planned that two review authors would independently extract data, and three would assess the risk of bias in any included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any RCTs that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no RCTs that evaluate different communication strategies for breaking the bad news for people diagnosed with ALS/MND. Focused research studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of different communication methods.

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme

BACKGROUND

This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

DATA SOURCES

We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.

REVIEW METHODS

This narrative systematic literature review comprised an update, extension and analysis/discussion. We systematically searched eight databases, supplemented by personal knowledge, in August 2014 through to March 2015.

RESULTS

The literature on impact assessment has much expanded. The Payback Framework, with adaptations, remains the most widely used approach. It draws on different philosophical traditions, enhancing an underlying logic model with an interpretative case study element and attention to context. Besides the logic model, other ideal type approaches included constructionist, realist, critical and performative. Most models in practice drew pragmatically on elements of several ideal types. Monetisation of impact, an increasingly popular approach, shows a high return from research but relies heavily on assumptions about the extent to which health gains depend on research. Despite usually requiring systematic reviews before funding trials, the HTA programme does not routinely examine the impact of those trials on subsequent systematic reviews. The York/Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation toolkits provide ways of assessing such impact, but need to be evaluated. The literature, as reviewed here, provides very few instances of a randomised trial playing a major role in stopping the use of a new technology. The few trials funded by the HTA programme that may have played such a role were outliers.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this review support the continued use of the Payback Framework by the HTA programme. Changes in the structure of the NHS, the development of NHS England and changes in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's remit pose new challenges for identifying and meeting current and future research needs. Future assessments of the impact of the HTA programme will have to take account of wider changes, especially as the Research Excellence Framework (REF), which assesses the quality of universities' research, seems likely to continue to rely on case studies to measure impact. The HTA programme should consider how the format and selection of case studies might be improved to aid more systematic assessment. The selection of case studies, such as in the REF, but also more generally, tends to be biased towards high-impact rather than low-impact stories. Experience for other industries indicate that much can be learnt from the latter. The adoption of researchfish^® (researchfish Ltd, Cambridge, UK) by most major UK research funders has implications for future assessments of impact. Although the routine capture of indexed research publications has merit, the degree to which researchfish will succeed in collecting other, non-indexed outputs and activities remains to be established.

LIMITATIONS

There were limitations in how far we could address challenges that faced us as we extended the focus beyond that of the 2007 review, and well beyond a narrow focus just on the HTA programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Research funders can benefit from continuing to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the studies they fund. They should also review the contribution of case studies and expand work on linking trials to meta-analyses and to guidelines.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Rapid aneuploidy detection or karyotyping? Ethical reflection

No consensus exists whether women at increased risk for trisomy 21, 13, and 18 should be offered stand-alone rapid aneuploidy detection (RAD) or karyotyping. In this paper, the ethical implications of a fast, relatively cheap and targeted RAD are examined. The advantages of RAD seem less robust than its proponents suggest. Fast test results only give a short-term psychological benefit. The cost advantage of RAD is apparent, but must be weighed against consequences like missed abnormalities, which are evaluated differently by professionals and pregnant women. Since pre-test information about RAD will have to include telling women about karyotyping as a possible alternative, the advantage of RAD in terms of the quantity of information that needs to be given may also be smaller than suggested. We conclude that none of the supposed arguments in favour of RAD is decisive in itself. Whether the case for RAD may still be regarded as convincing when taking these arguments together seems to depend on one's implicit view of what prenatal screening is about. Are we basically dealing with a test for trisomy 21 and a few conditions more? Or are there good grounds for also testing for the wider range of abnormalities that karyotyping can detect? As professionals and pregnant women may have different views about this, we suggest that the best approach is to offer women a choice between RAD and karyotyping. This approach is most in line with the general aim of prenatal screening: providing opportunities for autonomous reproductive choice.