Search

Purpose: Differences in Indigenous worldviews, practices and values highlight the need for Indigenous‐specific health quality indicators, such as patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs). The purpose of this paper is to present our methodology, as part of a larger study that sought to develop a framework for creating Indigenous‐specific PROMs and PREMs. Methods: The research design was informed by Indigenous research methodology and a community‐based participatory approach. It had three core components: (1) a literature exploration of existing Indigenous‐specific PROMs and PREMs; (2) interviews with researchers with expertise in PROMs and PREMs developed for Indigenous populations and community leaders interested in using these Indigenous‐informed evaluation tools; and (3) conversations with Indigenous community members about their experiences with health surveys. Interviews were audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim; transcripts were analyzed qualitatively using an inductive and deductive approach. Themes and sub‐themes were identified to build a framework that honours Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing. Results were validated with select research participants and the Project Advisory Committee. Results: Findings demonstrate how relationship building is the necessary starting point for engagement when developing survey instruments with Indigenous peoples. Engagement requires respectful collaboration through all stages of the project from determining what questions are asked to how the information will be collected, interpreted, and managed. A relational stance requires responsibility to Indigenous communities and peoples that goes beyond research carried out using a western scientific lens. It means ensuring that the project is beneficial to the community and framing questions based on Indigenous knowledge, worldviews, and community involvement. Conclusions: This study employed a collaborative, participatory qualitative approach to develop a framework for creating PROMs and PREMs with Indigenous peoples. The methods described offer concrete examples of strategies that can be employed to support relationship‐building and collaboration when developing Indigenous‐specific survey instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in the context of clinical care, but evaluation of patients' perspectives of PRO‐based applications in routine care remains limited. Aims and Objectives: This paper investigates patients' acceptability of a personalized web‐based decision report for total knee or hip replacement and identifies opportunities to refine the report. Method: This qualitative evaluation was embedded in a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of the report. We interviewed 25 patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis about their experiences using the personalized decision report in the context of a surgical consultation. The web‐based report contained current descriptive PRO scores of pain, function and general physical health; tailored predicted postoperative PRO scores (i.e., personalized likely outcomes based on actual knee or hip replacement outcomes of similar patients in a national registry); and information about alternative nonoperative treatments. Two trained researchers analysed the interview data qualitatively using a combination of inductive and deductive coding. Results: We identified three major categories for evaluation: content of report, presentation of data in report and engagement with report. Patients generally liked the report overall but specifically valued different pages of the report based on where they were in the surgical decision‐making process. Patients identified areas of confusion in data presentation related to graph orientation, terminology and interpretation of T‐scores. Patients also highlighted support needs to meaningfully engage with the information in the report. Conclusion: Our findings highlight areas of opportunity to further refine this personalized web‐based decision report and similar patient‐facing PRO applications for routine clinical care. Specific examples include additional tailoring of reports via filterable web‐based dashboards and scalable educational supports to facilitate more independent patient understanding and use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant proportion of somatic symptoms remain, at present, medically unexplained. These symptoms are common, can affect any part of the body, and can result in a wide range of outcomes—from a minor, transient inconvenience to severe, chronic disability—but medical testing reveals no observable pathology. This paper explores two first‐person accounts of so‐called 'medically unexplained' illness: one that is published in a memoir, and the other produced during a semi‐structured interview. Both texts are revelatory for their expression of shame in the context of encountering disrespect from healthcare professionals. The first section of my paper, clinical encounters, explores disrespect which, I argue, takes three interconnecting forms in these texts: disrespect for pain when it is seen as 'medically unexplained', disrespect for the patient's account of her own pain, and disrespect for the patient herself. The second section elucidates the shame that occurs as an affective and embodied consequence of encountering such disrespect. I claim that patients living with so‐called 'medically unexplained' illnesses suffer a double burden. They endure both somatic and social suffering—not only their symptoms, but also disrespectful, traumatic and shame‐inducing experiences of healthcare systems. I conclude with a reflection on the urgent need for changes in clinical training that could improve the quality of life for these patients, even in the absence of an explanation, treatment or cure for their symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Aims and Objectives: Horizontal violence has been defined as aggressive or hostile behaviour directed at an individual or between colleagues from the same working group. Measuring the prevalence of horizontal violence requires valid measures. To date, there has not been a review of the psychometric properties of available measurement tools for horizontal violence. Method: A rapid review of the MEDLINE and BUSINESS EBSCO databases was conducted to identify studies testing the validity of any measure of horizontal violence in any workplace setting. Title and abstract and full‐text screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were completed by two researchers working independently. The COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) was used to determine the methodological quality of studies, including details of the psychometric properties of included papers. Results: Fourteen papers reporting 17 studies were included in the review. Seven measures of horizontal violence (Civility Norms Questionnaire Brief; Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Inventory of Violence and Psychological Harassment; Leyman Inventory Psychological Terror Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations; Shortened Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised; Uncivil Workplace Behaviour Questionnaire) were identified. Most included studies were methodologically robust. Six measures had strong psychometric properties except for the Mobbing of Single Cases of Harassment in Employees Relations (MSCH) where key information about psychometric properties was not reported. Conclusions: We identified six measures of horizontal violence that had good psychometric properties. The Negative Acts Questionnaire—Revised has been most extensively tested in different settings but is not necessarily a more precise measure than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Self‐management support for schizophrenia has become expected practice leaving organisations to find ways for feasible implementation. Self‐management support involves a foundational cultural shift for traditional disease‐based services, new ways of clients‐providers working together, coupled with delivering a portfolio of tools and techniques. A new model of self‐management support embedded into traditional case management services, called SET for Health (Self‐management Engaging Together for Health), was designed and tailored to make such services meaningfully accessible to clients of a tertiary care centre. This paper describes the proof of concept demonstration efforts, the successes/challenges, and initial organisational changes. Method: An integrated knowledge translation approach was selected as a means to foster organisational change grounded in users' daily realities. Piloting the model in two community case management programmes, we asked two questions: Can a model of self‐management support be embedded in existing case management and delivered within routine specialised mental health services? What organisational changes support implementation? Results: Fifty‐one clients were enroled. Indicators of feasible delivery included 72.5% completion of self‐management plans in a diverse sample, exceeding the 44% set minimum; and an attrition rate of 21.6%, less than 51% set maximum. Through an iterative evaluation process, the innovation evolved to a targeted hybrid approach revolving around client goals and a core set of co‐created reference tools, supplemental tools and resources. Operationalisation by use of tools was implemented to create spaces for client‐provider collaborations. Monitoring of organisational changes identified realignment of practices. Changes were made to procedures and operations to further spread and sustain the model. Conclusion: This study demonstrated how self‐management support can be implemented, within existing resources, for routine delivery of specialised services for individuals living with schizophrenia. The model holds promise as a hybrid option for supporting clients to manage their own health and wellness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Implementation of strengths model case management is increasing internationally. However, few studies have focused on its implementation process, and none have specifically addressed the implementation experience of direct‐service practitioners. Objective: This paper presents factors that facilitate and impede the successful implementation of the strengths model, with a specific focus on practitioners who deliver the intervention directly to service recipients. Method: To address this objective, a qualitative study of seven mental health agencies that implemented the model was conducted, involving a combination of participant observations and qualitative semistructured interviews with case managers, team supervisors, and senior managers. Qualitative data were analyzed using open coding followed by axial coding. Finally, the findings were aligned with an adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Implementation of the strengths model involved a significant change in practice for case management practitioners. The results confirm that at the beginning of implementation, the strengths model was perceived as complex and not always adaptable to on‐the‐ground realities. With time, and with support from management, ongoing training and supervision sessions, and reflection and discussion, practitioners regained feelings of competence and resistance to the model diminished. The use of the model's structured team‐based supervision tools was fundamental to supporting the implementation process by enabling an interactive and concrete training approach. Conclusions: The more an approach leads to changes in daily practice and is perceived as complex, the more concrete support is needed during implementation. This article highlights the importance of attending to a practitioner's sense of personal effectiveness and competence in the adoption of new practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Implementation science (IS) should contribute to maintaining high standards of care across healthcare systems and enhancing care practices. However, despite the evident need for greater and more rapid uptake and integration of evidence in practice, IS design and methodology fall short of the needs of effective translation. Aim: In this paper we examine what it is about IS that makes it so appealing for effective uptake of interventions in routine practice, and yet so difficult to achieve. We propose a number of ways that implementation scientists could build mutual relationships with healthcare practitioners and other stakeholders including public members to ensure greater shared care practices, and highlight the value of IS training, collaborative educational events, and co‐designed research. Discussion: More consideration should be given to IS applications in healthcare contexts. Implementation scientists can make a valuable contribution by mobilizing theory and improving practice. However, goals for an evidence‐based system may be more appropriately achieved through greater outreach and collaboration, with methods that are flexible to support rapid implementation in complex adaptive systems. Collective learning and mutual trust can be cultivated by embedding researchers into healthcare services while offering greater opportunities for practitioners to learn about, and engage in, implementation research. Conclusion: To bridge the worlds of healthcare practice and IS, researchers could be more consistent in the relationships they build with professionals and the public, communicating through a shared language and co‐joining practical approaches to effective implementation. This will build capacity for improved collaboration and foster respectful, interdisciplinary relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision‐making (SDM) is considered the "final stage" that completes the implementation of evidence‐based medicine. Yet, it is also considered the most neglected stage. SDM shifts the epistemological authority of medical knowledge to one that deliberately includes patients' values and preferences. Although this redefines the work of the clinical encounter, it remains unclear what a shared decision is and how it is practiced. Aim: The aim of this paper is to describe how healthcare professionals manoeuvre the nuances of decision‐making that shape SDM. We identify barriers to SDM and collect strategies to help healthcare professionals think beyond existing solution pathways and overcome barriers to SDM. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 68 healthcare professionals from psychiatry, internal medicine, intensive care medicine, obstetrics and orthopaedics and 15 patients. Results: This study found that healthcare professionals conceptualize SDM in different ways, which indicates a lack of consensus about its meaning. We identified five barriers that limit manoeuvring space for SDM and contest the feasibility of a uniform, normative SDM model. Three identified barriers: (a) "not all patients want new role," (b) "not all patients can adopt new role," and (c) "attitude," were linked to strategies focused on the knowledge, skills and attitudes of individual healthcare professionals. However, systemic barriers: (d) "prioritization of medical issues" and (e) "lack of time" render such individual‐focused strategies insufficient. Conclusion: There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of SDM as a "graded" framework that allows for flexibility in decision‐making styles to accommodate patient's unique preferences and needs and to expand the manoeuvring space for decision‐making. The strategies in this study show how our understanding of SDM as a process of multi‐dyadic interactions that spatially exceed the consulting room offers new avenues to make SDM workable in contemporary medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]