Estimating patient-reported outcomes for glaucoma management: A cross-sectional study

AIM

To identify important explanatory variables of four patient-reported outcomes (PROs): vision-related quality of life (VRQoL), preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL), social support and community integration and depressive symptoms.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study conducted at one ophthalmic practice in a hospital setting. Patients with a diagnosis of glaucoma or glaucoma suspect (n = 250) were sequentially recruited. Patients with language restrictions were excluded. Data were collected through medical chart reviews and face-to-face interviews. The PROs were measured using validated tools. Candidate models for predicting PROs from explanatory variables were constructed using linear and logistic regression, as well as classification and regression trees. Through leave-one-out cross-validation, the performance of each model was assessed in terms of mean absolute error.

RESULTS

Use of mobility aids, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), income, and living arrangements were most predictive of VRQoL, social support, and community integration. Use of mobility aids was also most predictive of the presence of depressive symptoms, and BCVA with preference-based HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Although promising associations were discovered, the models based on commonly collected clinical variables had limited ability to accurately predict individual patient PROs. Thus, although this study identifies clinical and demographic variables that are most predictive of PROs, routine collection of PROs in clinical practice may be necessary to obtain a complete picture of the quality of life of glaucoma patients.

Mentoring needs of distributed medical education faculty at a Canadian medical school: a mixed-methods descriptive study

INTRODUCTION

The Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry in London, Ontario, has a mentorship program for all full-time faculty. The school would like to expand its outreach to physician faculty located in distributed medical education sites. The purpose of this study was to determine what, if any, mentorship distributed physician faculty currently have, to gauge their interest in expanding the mentorship program to distributed physician faculty and to determine their vision of the most appropriate design of a mentorship program that would address their needs.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study. The quantitative phase consisted of surveys sent to all distributed faculty members that elicited information on basic demographic characteristics and mentorship experiences/needs. The qualitative phase consisted of 4 focus groups of distributed faculty administered in 2 large and 2 small centres in both regions of the school's distributed education network: Sarnia, Leamington, Stratford and Hanover. Interviews were 90 minutes long and involved standardized semistructured questions.

RESULTS

Of the 678 surveys sent, 210 (31.0%) were returned. Most respondents (136 [64.8%]) were men, and almost half (96 [45.7%]) were family physicians. Most respondents (197 [93.8%]) were not formal mentors to Schulich faculty, and 178 (84.8%) were not currently being formally mentored. Qualitative analysis suggested that many respondents were involved in informal mentoring. In addition, about half of the respondents (96 [45.7%]) wished to be formally mentored in the future, but they may be inhibited owing to time constraints and geographical isolation. Consistently, respondents wished to have mentoring by a colleague in a similar practice, with the most practical being one-on-one mentoring.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that the school's current formal mentoring program may not be applicable and will require modification to address the needs of distributed faculty.