Economic evaluation of a person-centred care intervention in head and neck oncology: results from a randomized controlled trial

Analysis and mapping the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management

RATIONALE

Patient-centred care has emerged as a transformative approach in managing chronic diseases, aiming to actively involve patients in their healthcare decisions.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study was conducted to analyse and map the research landscape on patient-centred care in the context of chronic disease management.

METHODS

This study used Scopus to retrieve the relevant articles. The analysis focused on the growth pattern, highly cited articles, randomised clinical trials, patients and providers perspectives, facilitators and barriers, frequent author keywords, emerging topics, and prolific countries and journals in the field.

RESULTS

In total, 926 research articles met the inclusion criteria. There was a notable increase in the number of publications over time. Cancer had the highest number of articles (n = 379, 40.9%), followed by diabetes mellitus, and mental health and psychiatric conditions. Studies on patient-centred care in diabetic patients received the highest number of citations. The results identified 52 randomised controlled trials that covered four major themes: patient-centred care for diabetes management, shared decision-making in mental health and primary care, shared decision-making in cancer care, and economic evaluation and cost-effectiveness. The study identified 51 studies that examined the impact of tools such as computer-based systems, decision aids, smartphone apps, and online tools to improve patient-centred outcomes. A map of author keywords showed that renal dialysis, HIV, and atrial fibrillation were the most recent topics in the field. Researchers from the United States contributed to more than half of the retrieved publications. The top active journals included "Patient Education and Counselling" and "Health Expectations".

CONCLUSION

This study provides valuable insights into the research landscape of patient-centred care within the context of chronic diseases. The current study provided a comprehensive overview of the research landscape on patient-centred care, which can empower patients by raising their awareness about clinical experiences and outcomes.

Non-medical interventions to enhance return to work for people with cancer

BACKGROUND

People with cancer are 1.4 times more likely to be unemployed than people without a cancer diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether programmes to enhance the return-to-work (RTW) process for people who have been diagnosed with cancer are effective. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-medical interventions aimed at enhancing return to work (RTW) in people with cancer compared to alternative programmes including usual care or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and three trial registers up to 18 August 2021. We also examined the reference lists of included studies and selected reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs on the effectiveness of psycho-educational, vocational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions enhancing RTW in people with cancer. The primary outcome was RTW measured as either RTW rate or sick leave duration measured at 12 months' follow-up. The secondary outcome was quality of life (QoL).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data and rated certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We pooled study results judged to be clinically homogeneous in different comparisons reporting risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RTW and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs for QoL.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 RCTs involving 1477 people with cancer with 19 evaluations because of multiple treatment groups. In this update, we added eight new RCTs and excluded seven RCTs from the previous versions of this review that were aimed at medical interventions. All included RCTs were conducted in high-income countries, and most were aimed at people with breast cancer (nine RCTs) or prostate cancer (two RCTs). Risk of bias We judged nine RCTs at low risk of bias and six at high risk of bias. The most common type of bias was a lack of blinding (9/15 RCTs). Psycho-educational interventions We found four RCTs comparing psycho-educational interventions including patient education and patient counselling versus care as usual. Psycho-educational interventions probably result in little to no difference in RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24; 4 RCTs, 512 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention and control groups, approximately 625 per 1000 participants may have returned to work. The psycho-educational interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (MD 1.47, 95% CI -2.38 to 5.32; 1 RCT, 124 participants; low-certainty evidence). Vocational interventions We found one RCT comparing vocational intervention versus care as usual. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of a vocational intervention on RTW compared to care as usual (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13; 1 RCT, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not report QoL. Physical interventions Four RCTs compared a physical intervention programme versus care as usual. These physical intervention programmes included walking, yoga or physical exercise. Physical interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.39; 4 RCTs, 434 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 677 to 871 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 627 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 50 to 244 participants more RTW). Physical interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 173 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.8-point difference (95% CI -7.54 to 3.97) on the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Multidisciplinary interventions Six RCTs compared multidisciplinary interventions (vocational counselling, patient education, patient counselling, physical exercises) to care as usual. Multidisciplinary interventions likely increase RTW compared to care as usual (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33; 6 RCTs, 497 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This means that in the intervention group probably 694 to 844 per 1000 participants RTW compared to 625 per 1000 in the control group (thus, 69 to 217 participants more RTW). Multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL compared to care as usual (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.28; 3 RCTs, 378 participants; low-certainty evidence). The SMD translates back to a 1.4-point difference (95% CI -2.58 to 5.36) on the EORTC QLQ-C30.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Physical interventions (four RCTs) and multidisciplinary interventions (six RCTs) likely increase RTW of people with cancer. Psycho-educational interventions (four RCTs) probably result in little to no difference in RTW, while the evidence from vocational interventions (one RCT) is very uncertain. Psycho-educational, physical or multidisciplinary interventions may result in little to no difference in QoL. Future research on enhancing RTW in people with cancer involving multidisciplinary interventions encompassing a physical, psycho-educational and vocational component is needed, and be preferably tailored to the needs of the patient.

We are not even allowed to call them patients anymore: Conceptions about person-centred care

Although the implementation of person-centred care (PCC) has gained momentum in healthcare systems, it is not always obvious why it is an important objective in clinical settings and educational institutions that train future healthcare professionals. Various conceptions about PCC have flourished, such as that it only works in certain healthcare contexts, it is the same as the patient making all their own healthcare decisions, it is too demanding for most patients, the word 'patient' may no longer be used, the care provided is already person-centred, and that there is simply not enough time and resources to achieve it. This viewpoint paper aims to problematize these conceptions and may be used for didactical and reflective exercises that support the transition towards more person-centred healthcare. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Person Council for patients and carers at the University of Gothenburg provided focus group input on and validated the occurrence of the conceptions discussed in the present paper. The person council consists of a group of persons with many years of personal experiences of health care, either as patients and/or relatives/carers. One member of the person council who is also a designer and artist created the illustration for the article.

Analysis on personnel costs and working time for implementing a more person-centred care approach: a case study with embedded units in a Swedish region

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to describe the time and costs used during the implementation of a more person-centred care (PCC) approach as part of ordinary practice.

DESIGN

A case study with embedded units.

SETTING

Region Dalarna, Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

The Department for Development (DD) staff who provided a central support function in the implementation and six healthcare units: nephrology, two geriatric care and rehabilitation units, two psychiatry units and primary care.

INTERVENTIONS

More PCC.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Working days and related salary costs reported by categories indicating costs for implementation strategies, service delivery, and research/development costs.

RESULTS

The healthcare units logged on average 5.5 working days per staff member. In the healthcare units, 6%-57% of the time reported was used for implementation strategies, 40%-90% for service delivery and 2%-12% for research/development. Of the time reported by the DD, 88% was assigned to implementation strategies. Costs associated with reported time indicated 23% of costs for this implementation occurred in the DD. Using the budgeted cost, this proportion increased to 48%. The budget for the DD corresponded to SEK 2.30 per citizen per year and 0.009% of the total healthcare budget of the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found that a large part of resources used for this implementation of more PCC occurred in the DD, although at least half of the costs occurred in the healthcare units. Moreover, the cost of providing a central support function corresponds to a tiny proportion of the total health budget.

Diffusion of person-centred care within 27 European countries – interviews with managers, officials, and researchers at the micro, meso, and macro levels

Purpose

This study aimed to describe facilitators and barriers in terms of regulation and financing of healthcare due to the implementation and use of person-centred care (PCC).

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative design was adopted, using interviews at three different levels: micro = hospital ward, meso = hospital management, and macro = national board/research. Inclusion criteria were staff working in healthcare as first line managers, hospital managers, and officials/researchers on national healthcare systems, such as Bismarck, Beveridge, and mixed/out-of-pocket models, to obtain a European perspective.

Findings

Countries, such as Great Britain and Scandinavia (Beveridge tax-based health systems), were inclined to implement and use person-centred care. The relative freedom of a market (Bismarck/mixed models) did not seem to nurture demand for PCC. In countries with an autocratic culture, that is, a high-power distance, such as Mediterranean countries, PCC was regarded as foreign and not applicable. Another reason for difficulties with PCC was the tendency for corruption to hinder equity and promote inertia in the healthcare system.

Research limitations/implications

The sample of two to three participants divided into the micro, meso, and macro level for each included country was problematic to find due to contacts at national level, a bureaucratic way of working. Some information got caught in the system, and why data collection was inefficient and ran out of time. Therefore, a variation in participants at different levels (micro, meso, and macro) in different countries occurred. In addition, only 27 out of the 49 European countries were included, therefore, conclusions regarding healthcare system are limited.

Practical implications

Support at the managerial level, together with patient rights supported by European countries' laws, facilitated the diffusion of PCC.

Originality/value

Fragmented health systems divided by separate policy documents or managerial roadmaps hindered local or regional policies and made it difficult to implement innovation as PCC. Therefore, support at the managerial level, together with patient rights supported by European countries' laws, facilitated the diffusion of PCC.

Person-centred care on the move - an interview study with programme directors in Swedish higher education

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing trend towards person-centred care (PCC) worldwide, suggesting that PCC should be mastered by future health care professionals. This study aims to explore programme directors' views on facilitators and barriers to implementing PCC in four of the largest national study programmes in Sweden training future health care professionals.

METHODS

A qualitative design was applied and interviews were conducted with 19 programme directors of Swedish national study programmes in medicine, nursing, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. The interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Themes were sorted according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) in an abductive approach. COREQ guidelines were applied.

RESULTS

The overarching theme, as interpreted from the programme directors' experiences, was 'Person-centred care is on the move at different paces.' The theme relates to the domains identified by the CFIR as outer setting, innovation, inner setting and process. PCC was understood as something familiar but yet new, and the higher education institutions were in a state of understanding and adapting PCC to their own contexts. The movement in the outer setting consists of numerous stakeholders advocating for increased patient influence, which has stirred a movement in the inner setting where the higher educational institutions are trying to accommodate these new demands. Different meanings and values are ascribed to PCC, and the concept is thus also 'on the move', being adapted to traditions at each educational setting.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of PCC in Swedish higher education is ongoing but fragmented and driven by individuals with a specific interest. There is uncertainty and ambiguity around the meaning and value of PCC and how to implement it. More knowledge is needed about the core of PCC as a subject for teaching and learning and also didactic strategies suitable to support students in becoming person-centred practitioners.

Centredness in health care: A systematic overview of reviews

Introduction

The introduction of effective, evidence‐based approaches to centredness in health care is hindered by the fact that research results are not easily accessible. This is partly due to the large volume of publications available and because the field is closely linked to and in some ways encompasses adjoining fields of research, for example, shared decision making and narrative medicine. In an attempt to survey the field of centredness in health care, a systematic overview of reviews was conducted with the purpose of illuminating how centredness in health care is presented in current reviews.

Methods

Searches for relevant reviews were conducted in the databases PubMed, Scopus, Cinahl, PsychINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE using terms connected to centredness in health care. Filters specific to review studies of all types and for inclusion of only English language results as well as a time frame of January 2017–December 2018, were applied.

Results

The search strategy identified 3697 unique reviews, of which 31 were included in the study. The synthesis of the results from the 31 reviews identified three interrelated main themes: Attributes of centredness (what centredness is), Translation from theory into practice (how centredness is done) and Evaluation of effects (possible ways of measuring effects of centredness). Three main attributes of centeredness found were: being unique, being heard and shared responsibility. Aspects involved in translating theory into practice were sufficient prerequisites, strategies for action and tools used in safeguarding practice. Further, a variety and breadth of measures of effects were found in the included reviews.

Conclusions

Our synthesis demonstrates that current synthesized research literature on centredness in health care is broad, as it focuses both on explorations of the conceptual basis and the practice, as well as measures of effects. This study provides an understanding of the commonalities identified in the reviews on centredness in healthcare overall, ranging from theory to practice and from practice to evaluation.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patient representatives were involved during the initiation of the project and in decisions about its focus, although no patient or public representatives made direct contributions to the review process.

Commentary: how person-centred is pharmaceutical care?

Health systems in many countries are currently undergoing an evolution towards more person-centred care. However, an overview of the literature shows that there is little or no guidance available on how to apply person-centred care to pharmaceutical care and clinical pharmacy practices. In this paper we apply a model for person-centred care created by a national multidisciplinary research centre in Gothenburg, Sweden, to the clinical work tasks of outpatient and inpatient pharmacists and describe how pharmaceutical care can become more person-centred.

Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse in Europe: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

This study aims to describe how person-centred care, as a concept, has been adopted into discourse in 23 European countries in relation to their healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck, out of pocket).

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A literature review inspired by the SPICE model, using both scientific studies (CINHAL, Medline, Scopus) and grey literature (Google), was conducted. A total of 1,194 documents from CINHAL (n = 139), Medline (n = 245), Scopus (n = 493) and Google (n = 317) were analysed for content and scope of person-centred care in each country. Countries were grouped based on healthcare systems.

FINDINGS

Results from descriptive statistics (percentage, range) revealed that person-centred care was most common in the United Kingdom (n = 481, 40.3%), Sweden (n = 231, 19.3%), the Netherlands (n = 80, 6.7%), Northern Ireland (n = 79, 6.6%) and Norway (n = 61, 5.1%) compared with Poland (0.6%), Hungary (0.5%), Greece (0.4%), Latvia (0.4%) and Serbia (0%). Based on healthcare systems, seven out of ten countries with the Beveridge model used person-centred care backed by scientific literature (n = 999), as opposed to the Bismarck model, which was mostly supported by grey literature (n = 190).

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Adoption of the concept of person-centred care into discourse requires a systematic approach at the national (politicians), regional (guidelines) and local (specific healthcare settings) levels visualised by decision-making to establish a well-integrated phenomenon in Europe.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Evidence-based knowledge as well as national regulations regarding person-centred care are important tools to motivate the adoption of person-centred care in clinical practice. This could be expressed by decision-making at the macro (law, mission) level, which guides the meso (policies) and micro (routines) levels to adopt the scope and content of person-centred care in clinical practice. However, healthcare systems (Beveridge, Bismarck and out-of-pocket) have different structures and missions owing to ethical approaches. The quality of healthcare supported by evidence-based knowledge enables the establishment of a well-integrated phenomenon in European healthcare.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Our findings clarify those countries using the Beveridge healthcare model rank higher on accepting/adopting the concept of person-centered care in discourse. To adopt the concept of person-centred care in discourse requires a systematic approach at all levels in the organisation-from the national (politicians) and regional (guideline) to the local (specific healthcare settings) levels of healthcare.

Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Disability-Adjusted Life Years Are Better With Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy Than Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Chemoradiation Therapy in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

Introduction As traditional measures such as overall survival (OS) or disease-free survival (DFS) alone do not give a holistic view of the outcomes of a treatment paradigm, we determine to add the evidence of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) to the outcomes of the nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients (NCP) treated with definitive chemoradiation therapy (chemoRT) with or without induction chemotherapy (induction chemo). Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 85 NCPs treated at an academic state institution. The OS estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the multivariate Cox regression model determined the co-variables associated with the OS. The relationship between QALYs gained and DALYs saved were calculated from age of the disease onset, duration of the disease, quality of life (QoL) and disability weights. Results Of the 85 eligible NCPs of this cohort, the disease frequency distribution per the World Health Organization (WHO) classification was 41.2% for Type-I, 42.4% for Type-II, and 16.5% for Type-III. The median follow-up (24 months). The five-year OS of patients treated with concurrent chemoRT vs. induction chemo followed by concurrent chemoRT was 54.7 vs. 14.8% for WHO Type I, 60.1 vs. 58.3% for WHO Type II, and 83.3 vs. 50.0% for WHO Type III (p=0.029). The average DALYs saved with concurrent chemoRT were 12.2 years vs. 5 years for induction chemo followed by concurrent chemoRT. The average QALYs gained with concurrent chemoRT were 6.9 years vs. 3.1 years for induction chemo followed by concurrent chemoRT. Conclusion Patients treated with concurrent chemoRT had an increased QoL when compared to induction chemo followed by concurrent chemoRT. The average DALYs saved were higher in the patients treated with concurrent chemoRT than treated with induction chemo followed by concurrent chemoRT.

Modelling the cost-effectiveness of person-centred care for patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care has been shown to be cost-effective compared to usual care for several diseases, including acute coronary syndrome, in a short-term time perspective (< 2 years). The cost-effectiveness of person-centred care in a longer time perspective is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care for patients (< 65) with acute coronary syndrome, using a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective.

METHODS

The mid-term cost-effectiveness of person-centred care compared to usual care was estimated by projecting the outcomes observed in a randomized-controlled trial together with data from health registers and data from the scientific literature, 3 years beyond the 2-year follow-up, using the developed simulation model. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed using Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

Person-centred care entails lower costs and improved effectiveness as compared to usual care, for a 2-year time and a 5-year perspective. Monte Carlo simulations suggest that the likelihoods of the person-centred care being cost-effective compared to usual care were between 80 and 99% and between 75 and 90% for a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective (using a 500,000 SEK/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold).

CONCLUSIONS

Person-centred care was less costly and more effective compared to usual care in a 2-year and a 5-year time perspective for patients with acute coronary syndrome under the age of 65.

Person-centred eHealth intervention for patients on sick leave due to common mental disorders: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation (PROMISE)

INTRODUCTION

The number of people dealing with common mental disorders (CMDs) is a major concern in many countries, including Sweden. Sickness absence resulting from CMDs is often long-lasting and advancing return to work is a complex process impacted by several factors, among which self-efficacy appears to be an important personal resource. Person-centred care (PCC) has previously shown positive effects on self-efficacy however this needs to be further investigated in relation to patients with CMDs and in an eHealth context.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is an open randomised controlled trial comparing a control group receiving standard care with an intervention group receiving standard care plus PCC by telephone and a digital platform. The primary outcome measure is a composite score of changes in sick leave and self-efficacy. Participants will include 220 primary care patients on sick leave due to CMDs and data will mainly be collected through questionnaires at baseline and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months from the inclusion date. Inclusion is ongoing and expected to be completed during the fall of 2020. A process and health economic evaluation will also be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Gothenburg, Sweden. Results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international scientific conferences. This project is part of a broader research programme conducted at the Gothenburg Centre for Person-Centred Care (GPCC), where extensive work is undertaken to disseminate knowledge on and implementation of PCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03404583.