Search

Background Behavioural change interventions for persons with chronic illness draw on a variety of theoretical approaches including motivational interviewing and shared decision making. Health literacy provides an additional, potentially powerful explanatory framework to guide research and practice. Objective To examine the changes in the depth and detail of diabetes-related knowledge and confidence for persons with type 2 diabetes. Design Two-year, prospective, observational study, using questionnaire data at two time points (baseline and 2 years later) and in-depth interviews with a theoretically selected subsample. Setting and participants A total of 319 patients initially recruited from a deprived urban area in north-west England Intervention Dedicated tele-carer education and support, tailored to the individual circumstances of the patient. Main outcome measures Perceptions of confidence, levels of empowerment, learning for self-care and most helpful aspects of the intervention. Results Over 90% expressed confidence in keeping their blood sugar controlled, and high levels of perceived empowerment (mean = 4.25; 95% CI, 4.17-4.33) were found. Changes in the depth and detail of diabetes-related knowledge and confidence, from the specific to the more general, were observed and enhanced competence in translating knowledge into practice. Discussion and conclusions The intervention, built within a developed working partnership between tele-carer and patient, operated at two levels: health literacy, enhancing knowledge, developing personal skills and enabling self-control; and socio-psychological behavioural change, tailored to individuals within their socio-economic environments, enabling increased motivation and supportive problem-solving. Both approaches find reflection in the findings and provide powerful explanatory lenses to interrogate the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Routine collection of outcome measures is advocated to improve quality of care. However, there has been scant investigation of how measurement tools are used in clinical practice and what impact they may have. This paper compares two neuro-rehabilitation teams, one which routinely used standardized measurement tools and the other which did not. We explore differences in communication and clinical decision making within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to illuminate the influence measurement tools could have on clinical practice. Method Non-participant observation of MDT meetings in two neurological rehabilitation units in England. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with at least one member of each profession in each team. Grounded theory techniques were used to analyse the data. Results Differences in team members' communication within MDT meetings underscored differences in the process of clinical decision making within the teams. Using measurement tools provided a shared understanding to facilitate communication by focusing discussion on the patient's abilities rather than individual professionals' contributions. This led to differences in the way team members identified the nature and cause of patients' problems, monitored their progress and planned for discharge. They provided a 'neutral ground' to reach a shared perspective between professionals, thereby avoiding conflict. Externally, use of the tools enabled objective discussion with patients and their families about their progress and was a vehicle to facilitate giving bad news. Conclusion Using standardized measurement tools can promote a patient-focused approach to care, thus facilitating treatment planning and clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For the successful achievement of evidence-based practice, clinicians, managers and purchasers need evidence on whether a particular intervention works and ways to judge the appropriateness of the outcome criteria and measures used. Guidance is needed on what outcome measure to use, especially within routine clinical care settings. Beginning with a reclarification of the difference between a health status and an outcome measure, the paper presents an evaluative checklist for use by clinical audit and research staff to review outcome measures for use in routine care settings. Central features include the user-centredness of the measure, its psychometric properties, feasibility of use and utility. The applicability of the checklist is illustrated for outcome measurement in diabetes and stroke care. A modified form of the checklist is proposed for use by the busy clinician as an aid to the critical review of research papers within the context of evidence-based practice and to aid health care practitioners' choice of which outcome measure(s) to use within routine clinical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]