Patient Acceptance of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants in Rheumatology Care

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to assess whether patients with autoimmune disease would accept advanced practice providers (APPs) as an option to fill the growing shortage of rheumatologists.

METHODS

We administered a cross-sectional survey to 500 patients or parents of children who reported having been diagnosed with qualifying autoimmune conditions and who had seen their primary rheumatology providers in the past 6 months. Respondents self-reported whether their primary providers were rheumatologists or APPs. Our analysis compared the attitude and experience of the patients whose primary rheumatology providers were APPs with those of patients whose primary providers were rheumatologists.

RESULTS

Of respondents, 36.8% reported having APPs as primary rheumatology providers. Patients of APPs were significantly more likely to arrive at their provider's office in 15 minutes or less (p < 0.01) and to be able to schedule routine and urgent appointments sooner (p = 0.02, 0.05). There were no significant differences for overall patient experience of care between provider types. Most patients rated their providers highly, but those who saw rheumatologists rated their providers significantly higher (p < 0.01). APP patients were significantly more likely than rheumatologist patients to prefer to see APPs over rheumatologists (p < 0.01) and to recommend APPs (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

APPs may improve access to care, and regardless of provider type, patients rated their overall experience of care similarly. Overall, patient attitudes toward APPs were positive regardless of provider type, although APP patients held more positive overall attitudes toward APPs than did rheumatologist patients.

What motivates patients and caregivers to engage in health research and how engagement affects their lives: Qualitative survey findings

Background

US research organizations increasingly are supporting patient and stakeholder engagement in health research with a goal of producing more useful, relevant and patient‐centered evidence better aligned with real‐world clinical needs. The Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engages patients, family caregivers and other health‐care stakeholders, including clinicians, payers and policymakers, as active partners in prioritizing, designing, conducting and disseminating research as a key strategy to produce useful evidence for health‐care decision making.

Objective

To inform effective engagement practices and policies, we sought to understand what motivates patients and caregivers to engage as partners on PCORI‐funded research projects and how such engagement changed their lives.

Methods

We conducted thematic analysis of open‐ended survey responses from 255 patients, family caregivers and individuals from advocacy and community‐based organizations who engaged as partners on 139 PCORI‐funded research projects focusing on a range of health conditions.

Results

Partners' motivations for engaging in research were oriented primarily towards benefiting others, including a desire to improve patients' lives and to support effective health‐care interventions. In addition to feeling they made a positive difference, many partners reported direct benefits from engagement, such as new relationships and improved health habits.

Discussion and Conclusions

By identifying patient and caregiver motivations for engaging in research partnerships and what they get out of the experience, our study may help research teams and organizations attract partners and foster more satisfying and sustainable partnerships. Our findings also add to evidence that engagement benefits the people involved as partners, strengthening the case for more widespread engagement.

Evaluating Art Therapy to Heal the Effects of Trauma Among Refugee Youth

Background. Art therapy uses the creative process to encourage personal growth and alleviate symptoms of mental illness. The Art Therapy Institute provides programs for refugee adolescents from Burma to decrease their trauma-related symptoms. This article describes and discusses the methods and findings from an evaluation of this program. The challenges of assessing art therapy with this population and assessment tool gaps are explored and suggestions for future evaluations discussed. Method. Four validated clinical assessment tools were administered to 30 participants at baseline and follow-up to measure symptoms of anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems. Focus group discussions with clinicians were used to assess the evaluation. Results. Nearly all participants had experienced one or more traumatic events. At baseline, results showed a higher prevalence of depression than national rates among adolescents. Follow-up results showed improvements in anxiety and self-concept. Qualitative findings suggest that specific benefits of art therapy were not adequately captured with the tools used. Discussion. This evaluation showed some effects of art therapy; however, symptom-focused assessment tools are not adequate to capture clients’ growth resulting from the traumatic experience and this unique intervention. Future evaluations will benefit by using an art-based assessment and measuring posttraumatic growth.