1
|
Al-Omari B, Farhat J, Khan M, Grancharov H, Zahr ZA, Hanna S, Alrahoomi A. Exploring patient treatment decision making for osteoarthritis in the UAE: a cross-sectional adaptive choice-based conjoint study. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:1542. [PMID: 37573337 PMCID: PMC10423421 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16490-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/14/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess osteoarthritis (OA) patients' preferences for pharmaceutical treatment via Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint (ACBC) method. METHODS A United Arab Emirates (UAE) based Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) group designed the ACBC questionnaire with 10 attributes and 34 levels. The questionnaire was developed using Sawtooth Software and analyzed through Hierarchical Bayesian (HB). Results were standardized using Z-score via SPSS. RESULTS Study participants were 1030 OA patients, 83.6% aged 50 or older and 83.4% female. The avoidance of medication's side effects accounted for 66% relative importance compared to 6% relative importance for the medication's benefits. The "way of taking the medicine" attribute had the highest coefficient of variation (70%) and the four side effect attributes "risk of gastric ulcer, addiction, kidney and liver impairment, and heart attacks and strokes" had a coefficient of variation from 18 to 21%. CONCLUSIONS Arab OA patients are similar to other ethnic groups in trading-off benefits and side effects and consistently prioritizing the avoidance of medications' side effects. Although the "Way of taking medicine" was the least important attribute it was associated with the highest variation amongst patients. OA patients also prefer prescribed medications to internet-purchased and over-the-counter options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Basem Al-Omari
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
| | - Joviana Farhat
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Mumtaz Khan
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Department of Rheumatology, Sheikh Shakhbout Medical City (SSMC), P.O. Box 11001, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Hristo Grancharov
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Healthpoint Hospital, P.O. Box 112308, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Zaki Abu Zahr
- Department of Rheumatology, Healthpoint Hospital, P.O. Box 112308, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| | - Sammy Hanna
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Healthpoint Hospital, P.O. Box 112308, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Whitechapel, London, E1 2AD, UK
| | - Abdulla Alrahoomi
- Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Khalifa University, P.O. Box 127788, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
- Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Healthpoint Hospital, P.O. Box 112308, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Gooding PA, Pratt D, Awenat Y, Drake R, Elliott R, Emsley R, Huggett C, Jones S, Kapur N, Lobban F, Peters S, Haddock G. A psychological intervention for suicide applied to non-affective psychosis: the CARMS (Cognitive AppRoaches to coMbatting Suicidality) randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Psychiatry 2020; 20:306. [PMID: 32546129 PMCID: PMC7298803 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-020-02697-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Suicide is a leading cause of death globally. Suicide deaths are elevated in those experiencing severe mental health problems, including schizophrenia. Psychological talking therapies are a potentially effective means of alleviating suicidal thoughts, plans, and attempts. However, talking therapies need to i) focus on suicidal experiences directly and explicitly, and ii) be based on testable psychological mechanisms. The Cognitive AppRoaches to coMbatting Suicidality (CARMS) project is a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) which aims to investigate both the efficacy and the underlying mechanisms of a psychological talking therapy for people who have been recently suicidal and have non-affective psychosis. METHODS The CARMS trial is a two-armed single-blind RCT comparing a psychological talking therapy (Cognitive Behavioural Suicide Prevention for psychosis [CBSPp]) plus Treatment As Usual (TAU) with TAU alone. There are primary and secondary suicidality outcome variables, plus mechanistic, clinical, and health economic outcomes measured over time. The primary outcome is a measure of suicidal ideation at 6 months after baseline. The target sample size is 250, with approximately 125 randomised to each arm of the trial, and an assumption of up to 25% attrition. Hence, the overall recruitment target is up to 333. An intention to treat analysis will be used with primary stratification based on National Health Service (NHS) recruitment site and antidepressant prescription medication. Recruitment will be from NHS mental health services in the North West of England, UK. Participants must be 18 or over; be under the care of mental health services; have mental health problems which meet ICD-10 non-affective psychosis criteria; and have experienced self-reported suicidal thoughts, plans, and/or attempts in the 3 months prior to recruitment. Nested qualitative work will investigate the pathways to suicidality, experiences of the therapy, and identify potential implementation challenges beyond a trial setting as perceived by numerous stake-holders. DISCUSSION This trial has important implications for countering suicidal experiences for people with psychosis. It will provide definitive evidence about the efficacy of the CBSPp therapy; the psychological mechanisms which lead to suicidal experiences; and provide an understanding of what is required to implement the intervention into services should it be efficacious. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03114917), 14th April 2017. ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN17776666 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17776666); 5th June 2017). Registration was recorded prior to participant recruitment commencing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patricia A Gooding
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK.
| | - Daniel Pratt
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| | - Yvonne Awenat
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| | - Richard Drake
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| | - Rachel Elliott
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard Emsley
- Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, Kings College London, London, UK
| | - Charlotte Huggett
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| | - Steven Jones
- Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Lancashire, UK
- University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK
| | - Navneet Kapur
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Lobban
- Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Lancashire, UK
- University of Lancaster, Lancaster, UK
| | - Sarah Peters
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Gillian Haddock
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Building 1, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Trust (formerly Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust), Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Honein-AbouHaidar GN, Antoun J, Badr K, Hlais S, Nazaretian H. Users' acceptance of electronic patient portals in Lebanon. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2020; 20:31. [PMID: 32066425 PMCID: PMC7027116 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-020-1047-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2019] [Accepted: 02/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Acceptance of Electronic patient portal (EPP) is instrumental for its success. Studies on users’ acceptance in the Middle East region are scarce. This study aims to use the TAM as a framework to quantitatively describe potential users, diabetic and chronic high blood pressure patients and their providers, intention to use and factors influencing the intention to use EPP at AUBMC-FMC We concurrently test the internal construct validity and the reliability of the TAM. Methods A cross-sectional survey design and the vignette approach were used. For validation, we needed a minimum of 180 patients; all 35 attending physicians and 11 registered nurses were targeted. We used descriptive statistics to calculate the intention to use EPP and its determinants based on the TAM constructs. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were employed to estimate significant path coefficients for patients only as the sample size of providers was too small. Results We had 199 patients, half intended to use EPP; 73% of providers (N = 17) intended to use EPP. Perceived ease of use and privacy concerns were significantly higher among providers than patients (Mean (M) = 0.77 vs M = 0.42 (CI: − 0.623; − 0.081)) and (M = 3.67 vs M = 2.13, CI: − 2.16; − 0.91) respectively; other constructs were not significantly different. Reliability of TAM revealed a Cronbach Alpha of α=.91. EFA showed that three components explained 73.48% of the variance: Behavioral Intention of Use (14.9%), Perceived Ease of Use (50.74%), Perceived Usefulness (7.84%). SEM found that perceived ease of use increased perceived usefulness (standardized regression weight = 0.49); perceived usefulness (0.51) had more predictive value than perceived ease of use (0.27) to explain the behavioral intention of use of the EPP. Conclusions We found that providers valued the usefulness of EPP and were mostly intending to use it. This finding has yet to be tested in future studies testing actual use as intention and actual use may not be concordant. The intention to use among patients was lower than those reported in developed countries. We identified two factors that we need to address to increase use, namely perceived ease and usefulness, and proposed practical implications to address them; future research directions were also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jumana Antoun
- Faculty of Medicine, Family Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, 1107-2020, Lebanon
| | - Karim Badr
- Hariri School of Nursing, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, 1107-2020, Lebanon
| | - Sani Hlais
- Faculty of Medicine, Family Medicine Department, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, 1107-2020, Lebanon.,Faculty of Medicine, Saint- Joseph University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Houry Nazaretian
- American University of Beirut Medical Center, American University of Beirut, Riad El-Solh, Beirut, 1107-2020, Lebanon
| |
Collapse
|