Search

No specific quality criteria yet exist for question prompt lists (QPLs), so this study aims to develop a quality assessment tool to then use for an evaluation of online-available QPLs. An online search was conducted for German-language QPLs using different internet search engines and terms. A wide range of existing quality criteria for patient information was adapted to the field of QPLs to build an assessment tool and evaluate all identified QPLs by four independent raters. All new quality criteria were applicable to QPLs. The overall quality of 46 oncological QPLs was low, though the tool's subcategories were mostly fulfilled to over 80% by at least one QPL. For-profit organizations published lesser quality than medical organizations. The quality of breast- and prostate-cancer-specific QPLs was higher than that of general ones. High-quality QPLs could be created if more aspects were taken into account, but the available QPLs only focus on few quality aspects. The ambiguous results of effectiveness studies to date may be a result of vastly differing quality of the QPLs used for the interventions. The criteria provided in this study present a solid basis to assess the quality of QPLs. The creation of future QPLs as well as effectiveness studies should be more firmly based on quality criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been found to support patients to ask questions and improve the information they receive from doctors. However, some QPL tools, which have been available online for almost 15 years, have little published data on their impact in real‐world settings. This study's aim was to understand patients' attitudes and experiences accessing health information and to assess the impact of introducing two generic QPLs over 3 months. Methods A longitudinal qualitative study consisting of three semi‐structured interviews over a three‐month period was conducted with 31 purposively selected participants, adults ≥18 years, recruited online and through social media. Participants were introduced to two different QPLs currently available online (‘Question Builder’; ‘AskShareKnow’). Inductive thematic analysis of a total of 92 semi‐structured telephone interviews was conducted during May–November 2020. Results Three main themes are described. (1) Participants described barriers and facilitators to accessing health information: navigating a complex health system; difficulty asking questions of their healthcare professionals and that they value doctors with good communication skills. (2) QPLs helped some participants recognize the role of question‐asking in consultations, made them feel more empowered and helped them prepare and prioritize. (3) Participants wanted QPLs to be easier to use, be accessible when needed and that question‐asking and QPLs should be normalized in medical consultations. Conclusions Well‐designed and easily accessible QPLs can empower people to ask questions and be more involved in decisions about their health care. Endorsement of question‐asking in consultations by healthcare professionals and providing QPL tools at the point of contact with health services will be key to realizing the potential of QPLs. Patient or Public Contribution This study was completed in conjunction with a reference group consisting of a consumer representative, representatives from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Healthdirect Australia Ltd., and the research team.

Introduction: Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been found to support patients to ask questions and improve the information they receive from doctors. However, some QPL tools, which have been available online for almost 15 years, have little published data on their impact in real‐world settings. This study's aim was to understand patients' attitudes and experiences accessing health information and to assess the impact of introducing two generic QPLs over 3 months. Methods: A longitudinal qualitative study consisting of three semi‐structured interviews over a three‐month period was conducted with 31 purposively selected participants, adults ≥18 years, recruited online and through social media. Participants were introduced to two different QPLs currently available online ('Question Builder'; 'AskShareKnow'). Inductive thematic analysis of a total of 92 semi‐structured telephone interviews was conducted during May–November 2020. Results: Three main themes are described. (1) Participants described barriers and facilitators to accessing health information: navigating a complex health system; difficulty asking questions of their healthcare professionals and that they value doctors with good communication skills. (2) QPLs helped some participants recognize the role of question‐asking in consultations, made them feel more empowered and helped them prepare and prioritize. (3) Participants wanted QPLs to be easier to use, be accessible when needed and that question‐asking and QPLs should be normalized in medical consultations. Conclusions: Well‐designed and easily accessible QPLs can empower people to ask questions and be more involved in decisions about their health care. Endorsement of question‐asking in consultations by healthcare professionals and providing QPL tools at the point of contact with health services will be key to realizing the potential of QPLs. Patient or Public Contribution: This study was completed in conjunction with a reference group consisting of a consumer representative, representatives from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, Healthdirect Australia Ltd., and the research team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oncology patients who are migrants or refugees face worse outcomes due to language and communication barriers impacting care. Interventions such as consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists may prove beneficial in mediating communication challenges. However, designing robust research inclusive of patients who do not speak English is challenging. This study therefore aimed to: a) pilot test and assess the appropriateness of the proposed research design and methods for engaging migrant populations, and b) determine whether a multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the communication intervention utilising these methods is feasible. Methods: This study is a mixed-methods parallel-group, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial. Feasibility outcomes comprised assessment of: i) screening and recruitment processes, ii) design and procedures, and iii) research time and costing. The communication intervention comprised audio-recordings of a key medical consultation with an interpreter, and question prompt lists and cancer information translated into Arabic, Greek, Traditional, and Simplified Chinese. Results: Assessment of feasibility parameters revealed that despite barriers, methods utilised in this study supported the inclusion of migrant oncology patients in research. A future multi-site RCT efficacy assessment of the INFORM communication intervention using these methods is feasible if recommendations to strengthen screening and recruitment are adopted. Importantly, hiring of bilingual research assistants, and engagement with community and consumer advocates is essential. Early involvement of clinical and interpreting staff as key stakeholders is likewise recommended. Conclusion: Results from this feasibility RCT help us better understand and overcome the challenges and misconceptions about including migrant patients in clinical research.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are an effective tool for improving communication during medical visits. However, no studies have attempted to correlate intentions related to question asking and actual questions asked during visits. Moreover, few studies have used QPLs with patients with heart failure (HF) or family companions who accompany them to visits. We examined the use of a previsit QPL for patients with HF and their family companions intended to enhance engagement in HF care. The aim of this research was to assess which questions from the QPL patients and companions selected most frequently to ask and compare this item with which questions were actually asked during the medical visit.Methods and Results: This secondary analysis of QOLs and audiotaped visit data from a pilot study enrolled and consented patients with HF, family companions, and HF clinicians. A single group of 30 patients with HF and 23 family companions received the QPL to complete in the waiting room immediately before their cardiology visit. To meet our aims, we calculated the frequencies for each question selected and asked from the QPL, using data derived from completed prompt lists and audiotaped medical visits. A follow-up survey was administered 2 days after the appointment to assess differences in how participants filled out and used the prompt list. Patients and companions primarily selected and asked questions from the QPL regarding the management and treatment of the disease, general questions about HF, and questions about prognosis. Participants rarely asked questions about support for family and friends or health care team roles and responsibilities. Patients and companions did not ask many of the questions they reported wanting to ask.Conclusions: Prompt lists may empower patients and companions to communicate with their clinician by identifying important questions to help overcome patients' and companions' knowledge gaps. More research is needed to understand the true impact of prompt lists on patient-family-clinician communication and subsequent HF outcomes, and how best to implement them in clinical workflows to increase their potential usefulness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There is limited evidence on how to implement shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in routine practice. We conducted a qualitative study, embedded within a 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of two interventions for facilitating SDM about contraceptive methods in primary care and family planning clinics. The two SDM interventions comprised a patient-targeted intervention (video and prompt card) and a provider-targeted intervention (encounter decision aids and training). Methods Participants were clinical and administrative staff aged 18 years or older who worked in one of the 12 clinics in the intervention arm, had email access, and consented to being audio-recorded. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted upon completion of the trial. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, which are relevant to the successful implementation of provider behaviour change interventions. Results Interviews (n = 29) indicated that the interventions were not systematically implemented in the majority of clinics. Participants felt the interventions were aligned with their role and they had confidence in their skills to use the decision aids. However, the novelty of the interventions, especially a need to modify workflows and change behavior to use them with patients, were implementation challenges. The interventions were not deeply embedded in clinic routines and their use was threatened by lack of understanding of their purpose and effect, and staff absence or turnover. Participants from clinics that had an enthusiastic study champion or team-based organizational culture found these social supports had a positive role in implementing the interventions. Conclusions Variation in capabilities and motivation among clinical and administrative staff, coupled with inconsistent use of the interventions in routine workflow contributed to suboptimal implementation of the interventions. Future trials may benefit by using implementation strategies that embed SDM in the organizational culture of clinical settings.

Copyright of Der Onkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: In addition to question prompts for information transfer, we also used prompts to facilitate the expression of emotions. Our aim was to investigate how a question prompt list (QPL) is accepted by patients and whether it enhances interactional empowerment of the patients in the consultation with the radio-oncological treatment team before the beginning of radiotherapy.Methodology: Adult cancer patients before the beginning of radiotherapy were randomly assigned to the intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). The patients in the IG received a QPL with predefined subsets and subject areas. After the physician's consultation, both groups completed a self-developed, content validated questionnaire on interactional empowerment. The IG evaluated the QPL using a self-developed instrument.Result: A total of 279 adult cancer patients participated in the study (IG n = 139/CG n = 140). The participants of the IG reported a significantly higher interactional empowerment compared with those of the CG (t(277) = - 2.71, p = .007, 95% CI [- 1.61, - 0.26], d = 0.29). 60.4% of the IG agreed "rather" or "very" that they used the QPL in consultation with the medical team.Conclusion: The QPL used in the consultation improved the self-assessed competence for interaction with the medical team and strengthened the interactional empowerment. The QPL was well accepted by the patients and is to be introduced into a routine as a practicable and simple instrument in the future. The support of patients in addressing concerns and fears is an important innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions. Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked. Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (Mean PVP = 4.36, SD PVP = 4.66 vs. Mean control = 2.83, SD control = 3.03 , p = 0.045), including QPL questions (Mean PVP = 1.05, SD PVP = 1.39 vs. Mean control = 0.36, SD control = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (p s = 0.775 and 0.166). The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients. Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement. • A question prompt list increased question asking among pediatric patient caregivers. • But the question prompt list worked less effectively among underserved groups. • Additional interventions are needed to ensure research benefits diverse populations. • Improving engagement of underserved patients also requires changes by providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence on how to implement shared decision-making (SDM) interventions in routine practice. We conducted a qualitative study, embedded within a 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial, to assess the acceptability and feasibility of two interventions for facilitating SDM about contraceptive methods in primary care and family planning clinics. The two SDM interventions comprised a patient-targeted intervention (video and prompt card) and a provider-targeted intervention (encounter decision aids and training).Methods: Participants were clinical and administrative staff aged 18 years or older who worked in one of the 12 clinics in the intervention arm, had email access, and consented to being audio-recorded. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted upon completion of the trial. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Data collection and thematic analysis were informed by the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework, which are relevant to the successful implementation of provider behaviour change interventions.Results: Interviews (n = 29) indicated that the interventions were not systematically implemented in the majority of clinics. Participants felt the interventions were aligned with their role and they had confidence in their skills to use the decision aids. However, the novelty of the interventions, especially a need to modify workflows and change behavior to use them with patients, were implementation challenges. The interventions were not deeply embedded in clinic routines and their use was threatened by lack of understanding of their purpose and effect, and staff absence or turnover. Participants from clinics that had an enthusiastic study champion or team-based organizational culture found these social supports had a positive role in implementing the interventions.Conclusions: Variation in capabilities and motivation among clinical and administrative staff, coupled with inconsistent use of the interventions in routine workflow contributed to suboptimal implementation of the interventions. Future trials may benefit by using implementation strategies that embed SDM in the organizational culture of clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]