Search

Objective: To assess the effects of a multimedia educational intervention about advance directives (ADs) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the knowledge, attitude and activity toward ADs and life-sustaining treatments of elderly veterans.Design: Prospective randomized controlled, single blind study of educational interventions.Setting: General medicine clinic of a university-affiliated Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC).Participants: One hundred seventeen Veterans, 70 years of age or older, deemed able to make medical care decisions.Intervention: The control group (n = 55) received a handout about ADs in use at the VAMC. The experimental group (n = 62) received the same handout, with an additional handout describing procedural aspects and outcomes of CPR, and they watched a videotape about ADs.Measurements and Main Results: Patients' attitudes and actions toward ADs, CPR and life-sustaining treatments were recorded before the intervention, after it, and 2 to 4 weeks after the intervention through self-administered questionnaires. Only 27.8% of subjects stated that they knew what an AD is in the preintervention questionnaire. This proportion improved in both the experimental and control (87.2% experimental, 52.5% control) subject groups, but stated knowledge of what an AD is was higher in the experimental group (odds ratio = 6.18, p <.001) and this effect, although diminished, persisted in the follow-up questionnaire (OR = 3.92, p =. 003). Prior to any intervention, 15% of subjects correctly estimated the likelihood of survival after CPR. This improved after the intervention in the experimental group (OR = 4.27, p =.004), but did not persist at follow-up. In the postintervention questionnaire, few subjects in either group stated that they discussed CPR or ADs with their physician on that day (OR = 0.97, p = NS).Conclusion: We developed a convenient means of educating elderly male patients regarding CPR and advance directives that improved short-term knowledge but did not stimulate advance care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information regarding role of bioethics and business ethics over managed care. Topics discussed include role of professional medical management in industrialized health care delivery; use of bioethics for implementation of policies in clinical and research purposes; and role played by commercial managed care plans in avoiding societal issue of distribution of medical services.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world., Methods: We used the Kapriri and Martin framework for effective priority setting and performed a quantitative descriptive analysis to explore whether and how countries' type of health system, political, and economic contexts impacted the inclusion of those parameters in their COVID-19 pandemic plans. We analyzed 86 country plans across six regions of the World Health Organization., Results: The countries sampled represent 40% of nations in AFRO, 54.5% of EMRO, 45% of EURO, 46% of PAHO, 64% of SEARO, and 41% of WPRO. They also represent 39% of all HICs in the world, 39% of Upper-Middle, 54% of Lower-Middle, and 48% of LICs. No pattern in attention to parameters of PS emerged by WHO region or country income levels. The parameters: evidence of political will, stakeholder participation, and use of scientific evidence/ adoption of WHO recommendations were each found in over 80% of plans. We identified a description of a specific PS process in 7% of the plans; explicit criteria for PS in 36.5%; inclusion of publicity strategies in 65%; mention of mechanisms for appealing decisions or implementing procedures to improve internal accountability and reduce corruption in 20%; explicit reference to public values in 15%; and a description of means for enhancing compliance with the decisions in 5%., Conclusion: The findings provide a basis for policymakers to reflect on their prioritization plans and identify areas that need to be strengthened. Overall, there is little consideration for explicit prioritization processes and tools and restricted attention to equity considerations; this may be a starting point for policymakers interested in improving future preparedness and response planning. Although the study focused on the COVID-19 pandemic, priority setting remains one of the policymakers' most prominent challenges. Policymakers should consider integrating systematic priority setting in their routine decision-making processes., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting., Methods: The study was based on an analysis of national COVID-19 pandemic response and preparedness planning documents from a sample of seven (of the eleven) countries in WHO-SEARO. We described the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhered to twenty established quality indicators of effective PS and conducted a cross-country comparison., Results: All of the reviewed plans described the required resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most, but not all of the plans demonstrated political will, and described stakeholder involvement. However, none of the plans presented a clear description of the PS process including a formal PS framework, and PS criteria. Overall, most of the plans included only a limited number of quality indicators for effective PS., Discussion and Conclusion: There was wide variation in the parameters of effective PS in the reviewed plans. However, there were no systematic variations between the parameters presented in the plans and the country's economic, health system and pandemic and PS context and experiences. The political nature of the pandemic, and its high resource demands could have influenced the inclusion of the parameters that were apparent in all the plans. The finding that the plans did not include most of the evidence-based parameters of effective PS highlights the need for further research on how countries operationalize priority setting in their respective contexts as well as deeper understanding of the parameters that are deemed relevant. Further research should explore and describe the experiences of implementing defined priorities and the impact of this decision-making on the pandemic outcomes in each country., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a trend for clinical and translational community-engaged research in adapting to an increasingly virtual landscape. This requires a framework for engagement distinct from in-person research and program activities. We reflect on four case studies of community engagement activities that inform a conceptual framework to better integrate the virtual format into community-engaged research reflecting key tenets of health equity and antiracist praxis., Methods: Four projects were selected by community-engaged research stakeholders for an in-depth review based on how much the virtual transition impacted activities such as planning, recruitment, and data collection for each project. Transitions to virtual engagement were assessed across ten areas in which community engagement has been demonstrated to make a positive impact., Results: Our analysis suggests a conceptual evaluation framework in which the ten community engagement areas cluster into four interrelated domains: (1) development, design, and delivery ; (2) partnership and trust building ; (3) implementation and change ; and (4) ethics and equity ., Conclusions: The domains in this conceptual framework describe critical elements of community engaged research and programs consistent with recommendations for health equity informed meaningful community engagement from the National Academy of Medicine. The conceptual framework and case studies can be used for evaluation and to develop guidelines for clinical and translational researchers utilizing the virtual format in community-engaged research., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Introduction: Engaging with patients about their lived experience of health and illness and their experience within the healthcare system can help inform the provision of care, health policies and health research. In the context of health research, however, operationalizing the levels of patient engagement is not straightforward. We suggest that a key challenge to the routine inclusion of patients as partners in health research is a lack of tangible guidance regarding how this can be accomplished., Methods: In this article, we provide guidance on how to codesign and operationalize a concrete patient engagement plan for any health research project., Results: We illustrate a seven-step approach using the example of a national clinical trial in Canada and provide a patient engagement planning template for use in any health research project., Conclusion: Such concrete guidance should improve the design and reporting of patient engagement in health research., Patient or Public Contribution: The De-Implementing Wisely Research group is informed by a national 9-member patient partner council (PPC). The research team includes three lead patient partners who are coinvestigators on the grant that funds the program of research. Members of the council advise on all aspects of the study design and implementation. The ideas presented in this paper were informed by regular communication and planning with the PPC; specific contributions of lead patient partner authors are outlined as follows: Brian Johnston, Susan Goold and Vanessa Francis are patient partners with a wide breadth of experience in the healthcare system and health research projects. The guidance in this article draws on their lived and professional expertise. All patient partner authors contributed to the planning of the manuscript, participated in meetings to develop content and provided critical manuscript edits and comments on drafts., (© 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Priority setting represents an even bigger challenge during public health emergencies than routine times. This is because such emergencies compete with routine programmes for the available health resources, strain health systems and shift health-care attention and resources towards containing the spread of the epidemic and treating those that fall seriously ill. This paper is part of a larger global study, the aim of which is to evaluate the degree to which national COVID-19 preparedness and response plans incorporated priority setting concepts. It provides important insights into what and how priority decisions were made in the context of a pandemic. Specifically, with a focus on a sample of 18 African countries' pandemic plans, the paper aims to: (1) explore the degree to which the documented priority setting processes adhere to established quality indicators of effective priority setting and (2) examine if there is a relationship between the number of quality indicators present in the pandemic plans and the country's economic context, health system and prior experiences with disease outbreaks. All the reviewed plans contained some aspects of expected priority setting processes but none of the national plans addressed all quality parameters. Most of the parameters were mentioned by less than 10 of the 18 country plans reviewed, and several plans identified one or two aspects of fair priority setting processes. Very few plans identified equity as a criterion for priority setting. Since the parameters are relevant to the quality of priority setting that is implemented during public health emergencies and most of the countries have pre-existing pandemic plans; it would be advisable that, for the future (if not already happening), countries consider priority setting as a critical part of their routine health emergency and disease outbreak plans. Such an approach would ensure that priority setting is integral to pandemic planning, response and recovery., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press in association with The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.)

Drug shortages frequently and persistently affect healthcare institutions, posing formidable financial, logistical, and ethical challenges. Despite plentiful evidence characterizing the impact of drug shortages, there is a remarkable dearth of data describing current shortage management practices. Hospitals within the same state or region may not only take different approaches to shortages but may be unaware of shortages proximate facilities are facing. Our goal is to explore how hospitals in Michigan handle drug shortages to assess potential need for comprehensive drug shortage management resources. We conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders throughout the state to describe experiences managing drug shortages, approaches to recent shortages, openness to inter-institutional engagement, ideas for a shared resource, and potential obstacles to implementation. To solicit additional feedback on ideas for a shared resource gathered from the interviews, we held focus groups with pharmacists, physicians, ethicists, and community representatives. Among participants representing a heterogeneous sample of institutions, three themes were consistent: (1) numerous drug shortage strategies occurring simultaneously; (2) inadequate resources and lead time to proactively manage shortages; and (3) interest in, but varied attitudes toward, a collaborative approach. These data provide insight to help develop and test a shared drug shortage management resource for enhancing fair allocation of scarce drugs. A shared resource may help institutions adopt accepted best practices and more efficiently access or share finite resources in times of shortage., Competing Interests: Dr. Shuman is an unpaid consultant to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs on drug shortage-related issues. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Efforts to engage patients as partners in health research have grown and thereby the need for feedback and evaluation. In this pilot evaluation study, we aimed to 1) evaluate patient engagement in health research projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, and 2) learn more about how to best monitor and evaluate patient engagement. This paper presents the results of our participatory evaluation study and the lessons learned. The evaluation of the projects was driven by questions patients wanted answered., Methods: We conducted a formative evaluation of patient engagement in health research projects. Projects spanned a variety of topics, target groups, research designs and methods of patient engagement. Participants included principal investigators ( n  = 6) and their patient partners ( n  = 14). Furthermore, graduate students ( n  = 13) working on their own research projects participated. Participants completed an online survey with closed and open-ended questions about their patient engagement efforts, experiences and preliminary outcomes. Patients were involved as co-investigators in the entire evaluation study. We used qualitative methods to evaluate our participatory process., Results: The evaluation study results show that most patients and researchers felt prepared and worked together in various phases of the research process. Both groups felt that the insights and comments of patients influenced research decisions. They believed that patient engagement improved the quality and uptake of research. Students felt less prepared and were less satisfied with their patient engagement experience compared to researchers and their patient partners. Involvement of patient co-investigators in this evaluation resulted in learnings, transparency, validation of findings and increased applicability. Challenges were to select evaluation questions relevant to all stakeholders and to adapt evaluation tools to local needs., Conclusions: Our findings show that researchers, patient partners and students value patient engagement in health research. Capacity building at the supervisor level in academic institutions is needed to better support students. Sufficient time is also needed to permit observable outcomes. Participatory evaluation may increase the relevance and usefulness of information, but it also raises issues such as who defines and designs the content of evaluation tools. A co-creation process is required to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation strategies., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

In 1956, the Internal Revenue Service created the expectation that nonprofit hospitals would offer uncompensated care for those unable to pay; this was the beginning of Community Benefit (CB). CB efforts tend to prioritize inpatient medical care over developing community-based health improvements, and few CB resources are directed toward responding to health disparities. Changes to federal policy should address these concerns by (1) requiring community partners' involvement in CB implementation strategies, (2) requiring that community health needs assessments (CHNAs) be completed every 5 years instead of every 3 years, (3) changing the Internal Revenue Code to recognize organizations' work on social determinants as CB, and (4) requiring CHNAs to describe a community's health disparities and clarify how their implementation strategies address them. These changes would likely promote hospitals' engagement with public health departments, collaboration with community-based nonprofit organizations, and greater focus on health equity., (© 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Introduction: From the first day of residency, residents may be required to consent patients for interventions, procedures, or tests. The ability to perform an informed consent is considered one of the Association of American Medical College's Core Entrustable Professional Activities for entering residency. This case provides learners with the opportunity to obtain informed consent for a lumbar puncture procedure and to receive immediate structured feedback on their performance. This is a formative assessment, which has been used with both senior medical students and first-year residents at our institution., Methods: The case involves a standardized patient with a history of leukemia who presents to the emergency department with a headache, fever, and lethargy. The learner is charged with the task of compassionately, honestly, and confidently explaining the process of a lumbar puncture in order to appropriately obtain informed consent., Results: This case was well received, with the vast majority of learners rating the instructions as clear and the tasks of the station as appropriate for the level of learner. Comments provided by the learners regarding the standardized patients' feedback indicate that this is a useful exercise to assist with the development of the crucial skill of obtaining informed consent., Discussion: Overall, learners are able to perform this task and find it a meaningful exercise. We are able to measure both content and communication skills. In our cohort, learners are able to perform above the targeted passing score. This provides some evidence of competency in terms of both content and communication skills., Competing Interests: None to report.

Background: Patients' willingness to discuss costs of treatment alternatives with their physicians is uncertain., Objective: To explore public attitudes toward doctor-patient discussions of insurer and out-of-pocket costs and to examine whether several possible communication strategies might enhance patient receptivity to discussing costs with their physicians., Design: Focus group discussions and pre-discussion and post-discussion questionnaires., Participants: Two hundred and eleven insured individuals with mean age of 48 years, 51 % female, 34 % African American, 27 % Latino, and 50 % with incomes below 300 % of the federal poverty threshold, participated in 22 focus groups in Santa Monica, CA and in the Washington, DC metro area., Main Measurements: Attitudes toward discussing out-of-pocket and insurer costs with physicians, and towards physicians' role in controlling costs; receptivity toward recommended communication strategies regarding costs., Key Results: Participants expressed more willingness to talk to doctors about personal costs than insurer costs. Older participants and sicker participants were more willing to talk to the doctor about all costs than younger and healthier participants (OR = 1.8, p = 0.004; OR = 1.6, p = 0.027 respectively). Participants who face cost-related barriers to accessing health care were in greater agreement than others that doctors should play a role in reducing out-of-pocket costs (OR = 2.4, p = 0.011). Participants did not endorse recommended communication strategies for discussing costs in the clinical encounter. In contrast, participants stated that trust in one's physician would enhance their willingness to discuss costs. Perceived impediments to discussing costs included rushed, impersonal visits, and clinicians who are insufficiently informed about costs., Conclusions: This study suggests that trusting relationships may be more conducive than any particular discussion strategy to facilitating doctor-patient discussions of health care costs. Better public understanding of how medical decisions affect insurer costs and how such costs ultimately affect patients personally will be necessary if discussions about insurer costs are to occur in the clinical encounter.

Objective: A frequently cited obstacle to universal insurance is the lack of consensus about what benefits to offer in an affordable insurance package. This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of providing uninsured patients the opportunity to define their own benefit package within cost constraints., Design: Structured group exercises., Setting: Community setting., Participants: Uninsured individuals recruited from clinical and community settings in central North Carolina., Measurements: Insurance choices were measured using a simulation exercise, CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together). Participants designed managed care plans, individually and as groups, by selecting from 15 service categories having varied levels of restriction (e.g., formulary, copayments) within the constraints of a fixed monthly premium comparable to the typical per member/per month managed care premium paid by U.S. employers., Main Results: Two hundred thirty-four individuals who were predominantly male (70%), African American (55%), and socioeconomically disadvantaged (53% earned <$15,000 annually) participated in 22 groups and were able to design health benefit packages individually and in groups. All 22 groups chose to cover hospitalization, pharmacy, dental, and specialty care, and 21 groups chose primary care and mental health. Although individuals' choices differed from their groups' selections, 86% of participants were willing to abide by group choices., Conclusions: Groups of low-income uninsured individuals are able to identify acceptable benefit packages that are comparable in cost but differ in benefit design from managed care contracts offered to many U.S. employees today.

Though trust is essential to relationships between people, including that between patient and clinician, its role in organizational ethics is largely unexplored. Nonetheless, trust is also ideally a part of the relationship between patient and health care institution, both because it is desirable in and of itself, and because it makes for better medical care.