Patient agenda setting in respiratory outpatients: A randomized controlled trial

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation.

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.Patient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.Patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).The impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.

Addressing unmet needs of patients with chronic diseases: Impact of the VISIT website during consultations

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Patient concerns are often neglected in consultations, especially for chronic diseases where patients and providers fall into the routine of chronic disease management in consultations. One strategy to elicit patient concerns has been to ask patients to complete agenda lists before the consultation. This study aimed to explore the impact of a preconsultation agenda website in addressing patients' unmet needs during chronic disease consultations.

METHODS

Patients entered their concerns into a website (Values In Shared Interactions Tool (VISIT)). Doctors accessed this information via the electronic medical records before consultations. Individual in-depth interviews were then conducted with patients and doctors on the website's impact on consultations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The average age (years) was 65.7 for patients (n = 8) and 35.7 for doctors (n = 7). Patients in the study entered between 1 to 6 items in the website. From postconsultation interviews, we found that the website impacted the consultation in 5 ways: (1) It facilitated patients to communicate their full agenda to doctors; (2) it helped address unmet patient needs as it gave them opportunity to raise other issues besides their chronic condition; (3) it facilitated rapport between doctor and patient; (4) it facilitated doctors to organize their consultation around the concerns the patient had listed; and (5) it disrupted the doctor's usual consultation style if the list of concerns was lengthy.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating patient concerns into electronic health records helped to facilitate patient-centred consultations. Doctors found this information useful but felt uneasy if the agenda list was too long or too complex. Areas for future studies include training doctors to manage complex agendas and formal evaluation of the VISIT tool.

Shared decision-making for people with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the airways and is common in both adults and children. It is characterised by symptoms including wheeze, shortness of breath, chest tightness, and cough. People with asthma may be helped to manage their condition through shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves at least two participants (the medical practitioner and the patient) and mutual sharing of information, including the patient's values and preferences, to build consensus about favoured treatment that culminates in an agreed action. Effective self-management is particularly important for people with asthma, and SDM may improve clinical outcomes and quality of life by educating patients and empowering them to be actively involved in their own health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess benefits and potential harms of shared decision-making for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, which contains studies identified in several sources including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of included studies. We conducted the most recent searches on 29 November 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies of individual or cluster parallel randomised controlled design conducted to compare an SDM intervention for adults and children with asthma versus a control intervention. We included studies available as full-text reports, those published as abstracts only, and unpublished data, and we placed no restrictions on place, date, or language of publication. We included interventions targeting healthcare professionals or patients, their families or care-givers, or both. We included studies that compared the intervention versus usual care or a minimal control intervention, and those that compared an SDM intervention against another active intervention. We excluded studies of interventions that involved multiple components other than the SDM intervention unless the control group also received these interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened searches, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were asthma-related quality of life, patient/parent satisfaction, and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included exacerbations of asthma, asthma control, acceptability/feasibility from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and all adverse events. We graded and presented evidence in a 'Summary of findings' table.We were unable to pool any of the extracted outcome data owing to clinical and methodological heterogeneity but presented findings in forest plots when possible. We narratively described skewed data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies that compared SDM versus control and included a total of 1342 participants. Three studies recruited children with asthma and their care-givers, and one recruited adults with asthma. Three studies took place in the United States, and one in the Netherlands. Trial duration was between 6 and 24 months. One trial delivered the SDM intervention to the medical practitioner, and three trials delivered the SDM intervention directly to the participant. Two paediatric studies involved use of an online portal, followed by face-to-face consultations. One study delivered an SDM intervention or a clinical decision-making intervention through a mixture of face-to-face consultations and telephone calls. The final study randomised paediatric general practice physicians to receive a seminar programme promoting application of SDM principles. All trials were open-label, although one study, which delivered the intervention to physicians, stated that participants were unaware of their physicians' involvement in the trial. We had concerns about selection and attrition bias and selective reporting, and we noted that one study substantially under-recruited participants. The four included studies used different approaches to measure fidelity/intervention adherence and to report study findings.One study involving adults with poorly controlled asthma reported improved quality of life (QOL) for the SDM group compared with the control group, using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) for assessment (mean difference (MD) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.91), but two other trials did not identify a benefit. Patient/parent satisfaction with the performance of paediatricians was greater in the SDM group in one trial involving children. Medication adherence was better in the SDM group in two studies - one involving adults and one involving children (all medication adherence: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.31; mean number of controlled medication prescriptions over 26 weeks: 1.1 in the SDM group (n = 26) and 0.7 in the control group (n = 27)). In one study, asthma-related visit rates were lower in the SDM group than in the usual care group (1.0/y vs 1.4/y; P = 0.016), but two other studies did not report a difference in exacerbations nor in prescriptions for short courses of oral steroids. Finally, one study described better odds of reporting no asthma problems in the SDM group than in the usual care group (odds ratio (OR) 1.90, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.87), although two other studies reporting asthma control did not identify a benefit with SDM. We found no information about acceptability of the intervention to the healthcare professional and no information on adverse events. Overall, our confidence in study results ranged from very low to moderate, and we downgraded outcomes owing to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Substantial differences between the four included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that we cannot provide meaningful overall conclusions. Individual studies demonstrated some benefits of SDM over control, in terms of quality of life; patient and parent satisfaction; adherence to prescribed medication; reduction in asthma-related healthcare visits; and improved asthma control. Our confidence in the findings of these individual studies ranges from moderate to very low, and it is important to note that studies did not measure or report adverse events.Future trials should be adequately powered and of sufficient duration to detect differences in patient-important outcomes such as exacerbations and hospitalisations. Use of core asthma outcomes and validated scales when possible would facilitate future meta-analysis. Studies conducted in lower-income settings and including an economic evaluation would be of interest. Investigators should systematically record adverse events, even if none are anticipated. Studies identified to date have not included adolescents; future trials should consider their inclusion. Measuring and reporting of intervention fidelity is also recommended.