Patient initiated follow up in Obstetrics and Gynaecology: A systematic review

Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences.

METHODS

A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types.

RESULTS

A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients' and the general public's preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.

The impact of patient engagement on patient safety in care transitions after cancer treatment: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transitions of care after cancer treatment pose a major challenge for patient safety as adverse events and unplanned healthcare utilization occur frequently. At this point, patient and family engagement (PFE) is particularly valuable since patients and their families experience various challenges along this pathway, such as changing roles and recurrent needs to navigate across structural gaps between different services. However, there is currently a lack of evidence on the impact of PFE on patient safety in transitions after cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and synthesize evidence on effects of different PFE interventions on patient safety in the transition of care after cancer treatment.

METHODS

This protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis follows PRISMA-P guidelines. A comprehensive database search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and APA PsycInfo. Trial registries and grey literature will be searched, forward and backward citation tracking will be performed. Trials with prospective, longitudinal, interventional study designs will be included if they evaluate PFE interventions on patient safety outcomes (primary outcomes: healthcare utilization, patient harm, adherence, patient experience; secondary: quality of life, distress); eligible studies need to survey patients with any oncological disease during or after transition following cancer treatment. Results will be synthesized narratively and meta-analytically using a random-effects model. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 and revised JBI critical appraisal tool. The certainty of evidence will be judged according to the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

Robust evidence of effectiveness is needed to establish PFE interventions for patient safety in care transitions for oncological patients. This review will allow evidence-based conclusions about types and effects of different PFE interventions for transitional safety in oncology care and inform stakeholders in designing sustainable PFE activities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42024546938), OSF (doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9XAMU).

Facilitators and barriers to home blood pressure monitoring among pregnant women in Ghana: a mixed-methods analysis of patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

The benefit of home blood pressure monitoring during pregnancy and in low-resource settings is incompletely understood. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences, barriers, and facilitators of home blood pressure monitoring among pregnant women in Ghana.

METHODS

This concurrent triangulation mixed-methods study was conducted at an urban tertiary hospital in Ghana. Participants were recruited from adult pregnant women presenting for routine antenatal care. Upon enrollment, participants' demographics and history were collected. At the next study visit, participants received audiovisual and hands-on training on using an automatic blood pressure monitor; they then monitored and logged their blood pressure daily at home for 2-4 weeks. At the final study visit, verbally administered surveys and semi-structured interviews assessed participant's experiences. Quantitative data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2, and frequencies and descriptive statistics were calculated. Qualitative data were imported into DeDoose 9.0.78 for thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of 235 enrolled participants, 194 completed surveys; of those, 33 completed in-depth interviews. Participants' mean age was 31.6 (SD 5.3) years, 32.1% had not previously given birth, and 31.1% had less than a senior high school education. On a 4-point Likert scale, the majority reported they "definitely" were able to remember (n = 134, 69.1%), could find the time (n = 124, 63.9%), had the energy (n = 157, 80.9%), could use the blood pressure monitor without problems (n = 155, 79.9%), and had family approval (n = 182, 96.3%) while engaging in home blood pressure monitoring. 95.88% (n = 186) believed that pregnant women in Ghana should monitor their blood pressure at home. Qualitative thematic analysis demonstrated that most participants liked home blood pressure monitoring because of increased knowledge of their health during pregnancy. While most participants found measuring their blood pressure at home doable, many faced challenges. Participants' experiences with five key factors influenced how easy or difficult their experience was: 1) Time, stress, and daily responsibilities; 2) Perceived importance of BP in pregnancy; 3) Role of family; 4) Capability of performing monitoring; 5) Convenience of monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Among pregnant women in urban Ghana, home blood pressure monitoring was perceived as positive, important, and doable; however, challenges must be addressed.

Publishing clinical trial results in plain language: a clash of ethical principles?

Plain language resources (PLR) are lay summaries of clinical trial results or plain language summaries of publications, in digital/visual/language formats. They aim to provide accurate information in jargon-free, and easy-to-understand language that can meet the health information needs of the general public, especially patients and caregivers. These are typically developed by the study sponsors or investigators, or by national public health bodies, research hospitals, patient organizations, and non-profit organizations. While the usefulness of PLR seems unequivocal, they have never been analyzed from the perspective of ethics. In this commentary, we do so and reflect on whether PLR are categorically advantageous or if they solve certain issues but raise new problems at the same time. Ethical concerns that PLR can potentially address include but are not limited to individual and community level health literacy, patient empowerment and autonomy. We also highlight the ethical issues that PLR may potentially exacerbate, such as fair balanced presentation and interpretation of medical knowledge, positive publication bias, and equitable access to information. PLR are important resources for patients, with promising implications for individual as well as community health. However, they require appropriate oversight and standards to optimize their potential value. Hence, we also highlight recommendations and best practices from our reading of the literature, that aim to minimize these biases.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient-initiated follow-up after cancer

BACKGROUND

The traditional cancer follow-up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool-2. Meta-analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient-related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient-led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long-term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424).

Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Current follow-up models in cancer are seen to be unsustainable and inflexible, and there is growing interest in alternative models, such as patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU). It is therefore important to understand whether PIFU is acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs).

METHODS

Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification (to January 2022), selection and data extraction. Thematic synthesis was undertaken for qualitative data, and survey findings were tabulated and described.

RESULTS

Nine qualitative studies and 22 surveys were included, mainly in breast and endometrial cancer. Women treated for breast or endometrial cancer and HCPs were mostly supportive of PIFU. Facilitators for PIFU included convenience, control over own health and avoidance of anxiety-inducing clinic appointments. Barriers included loss of reassurance from scheduled visits and lack of confidence in self-management. HCPs were supportive of PIFU but concerned about resistance to change, unsuitability of PIFU for some patients and costs.

CONCLUSION

PIFU is viewed mostly positively by women treated for breast or endometrial cancer, and by HCPs, but further evidence is needed from a wider range of cancers, men, and more representative samples. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181412).