Search

Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the treatment of choice for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip. Management of THA differs between countries, and it is hypothesised that this can influence patients' expectations and self-efficacy. Using Chen's intervening mechanism evaluation approach, this study aims to explore how structure of care influences expectations and self-efficacy of patients undergoing THA, and how expectations and self-efficacy in turn influence outcome in terms of perceived physical function and satisfaction., Methods and Analysis: A mixed-methods study will be conducted in two German and two Dutch hospitals near the Dutch-German border. In the quantitative part, patients will complete questionnaires at three timepoints: preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Data analysis will include multiple regression analysis and structural equation modelling. In the qualitative part, interviews will be held with patients (preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively) and healthcare providers. Analysis will be performed using structured qualitative content analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg (2021-167) and University Medical Center Groningen (METc 2021/562 and METc 2021/601). The results will be disseminated in the international scientific community via publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS: DRKS00026744)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: In connection with a hospital stay, patients have to make important health-related decisions. They need to find, understand, assess and apply health-related information, and therefore, require health literacy. Adequately responding to the needs of patients requires promoting the communication skills of healthcare professionals within healthcare organisations. Health-literate healthcare organisations can provide an environment strengthening professionals' and patients' health literacy. When developing health-literate healthcare organisations, it has to be considered that implementing organisational change is typically challenging. In this study, a communication concept based on previously evaluated communication training is codesigned, implemented and evaluated in four clinical departments of a university hospital., Method and Analysis: In a codesign phase, focus group interviews among employees and patients as well as a workshop series with employees and hospital management are used to tailor the communication concept to the clinical departments and to patients' needs. Also, representatives responsible for the topic of health literacy are established among employees. The communication concept is implemented over a 12-month period; outcomes studied are health literacy on the organisational and patient levels. Longitudinal survey data acquired from a control cohort prior to the implementation phase are compared with data of an intervention cohort after the implementation phase. Moreover, survey data from healthcare professionals before and after the implementation are compared. For formative evaluation, healthcare professionals are interviewed in focus groups., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the University of Oldenburg and is in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Study participants are asked to provide written informed consent. The results are disseminated via direct communication within the hospital, publications and conference presentations. If the intervention turns out to be successful, the intervention and implementation strategies will be made available to other hospitals., Trial Registration Number: DRKS00019830., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Public and patient involvement (PPI) in healthcare decisions at the health system-level (macro-level) has become increasingly important during recent years. Existing evidence indicates that PPI increase patient centredness and the democracy of healthcare decisions as well as patients' trust and acceptance of these decisions. However, different methods for PPI exist, and an overview of the outcomes and influential contextual factors has not yet been conducted. Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an overview of the different methods used for PPI in health system decisionmaking and the reported outcomes and contextual factors for these methods., Methods and Analysis: The structure of this protocol is guided by the advanced scoping studies framework of Arksey and O' Malley, developed by Levac, Colquhoun and O'Brien, and the PRISMA-ScR Statement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, PDQ-Evidence, Web of Science and PsycINFO) for peer-reviewed literature and screen the reference lists of included studies. Additionally, we will search for relevant grey literature and consult experts from the field to identify further information. Studies focusing on PPI in the context of health policy decision-making at the macro-level will be eligible for full-text screening. Studies focusing on decisions at the individual treatment-level (micro-level) and the organisational-level (mesolevel) as well as those dealing with PPI in health research will be excluded. A qualitative analysis will dissect how the included studies define PPI and its desirable outcomes, the achieved outcomes and reported contextual factors., Ethics and Dissemination: We will present the results at relevant conferences and in an open-access journal. Additionally, we will share them with the experts involved in the research process and consider ways in which to transfer the findings into practice. As only secondary and previously published information will be used, ethical approval is not necessary., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Due to technological progress and persistent shortage of donor hearts, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become established in the treatment of advanced heart failure. Accordingly, more patients live with LVADs for prolonged periods. Related research focused primarily on clinical issues and little is known about psychosocial aspects of living with an LVAD. This study aims to explore psychological burden and coping following LVAD implantation., Methods and Analysis: An exploratory qualitative study with cross-sectional and longitudinal elements will be carried out. At least 18 patients with LVAD who have the device implanted from a few weeks to more than 3 years will be interviewed in the cross-sectional component using an interview guide. A subsample of patients who live with the LVAD for up to 3 months when recruited will be interviewed two additional times in the following year. The cross-sectional interviews will be analysed using an inductive qualitative content analysis to describe psychological burden, coping resources and behaviour from the patient's perspective. Based on the findings, the longitudinal interviews will be analysed with a deductive content analysis to explore psychological adjustment during the first year after implantation. The findings will provide a deeper understanding of the complex and specific situation of patients with LVAD and of psychological adjustment to living with a life-sustaining implant. This can help clinicians in considering individual aspects to promote patient outcomes and is the basis for further research on healthcare interventions or technical solutions to reduce burden and for developing rehabilitation measures to promote psychosocial outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at the University of Oldenburg (2019-023). Study findings will be disseminated at national and international conferences and through peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00016883)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)