Search

Background: Person‐centred care is a growing imperative in healthcare, but the documentation of person‐centred care is challenging. According to the Gothenburg Framework of Person‐centred Care, care should be documented in continuously revised care plans and based on patients' personally formulated goals and resources to secure a continuous partnership. Objectives: This study aimed to examine care plans produced within a randomised controlled trial that tested a person‐centred care intervention in older people with acute coronary syndrome. Nurses with training in the theory and practice of person‐centred care had written the care plans. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of care plans developed in a randomised controlled trial for assessing person‐centred care in patients with acute coronary syndrome (Myocardial Infarct [MI] or unstable angina pectoris). The study sample included 84 patients, with three care plans for each patient from inpatient (T1), outpatient (T2) and primary care (T3), that is, a total of 252 care plans. We conducted a descriptive quantitative content analysis of the care plans to examine the reported patients' life‐world and medical/health resources and goals. Results: The analysis illustrates the differences and overlaps between life‐world and medical/health goals and resources. The documented goals and resources change over time: life‐world goals and resources decreased with time as medical/health goals and resources documentation increased. Conclusions: This paper illustrates that in the setting of a randomised controlled trial, nurses with training in person‐centred care recorded fewer life‐world and more medical/health goals over time. Placing life‐world goals at the top of the goal hierarchy enables alignment with medical/health goals. Further research should explore whether the goals and resources documented in care plans accurately reflect patients' wishes as they transition along the care chain. Trial registration: Swedish registry, Researchweb.org, ID NR 65 791. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person‐Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. Aim: This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Participants and Methods: Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T‐tests (construct validity). Results: The two‐component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health‐literate or less activated experienced less person‐centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. Conclusion: The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person‐centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health‐literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. Patient Contribution: The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English‐language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To facilitate change for person‐centred care, there is a need to invest in measures to assess if and how healthcare systems are delivering care based on the principles of person‐centred care. This paper describes the first phase in developing an item bank to measure patients' experiences of person‐centred care. Aim: The aim was to translate, culturally adapt and evaluate candidate items to measure person‐centred care from the patient's perspective. Methods: The Centre for person‐centred care at Gothenburg university and the UK Person‐centred and coordinated care model informed our conceptual framework. The initial pool of item candidates originated from a previous systematic review where 855 items were identified. In this study, a mixed method design was used involving persons with experience as patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers in person‐centred care or questionnaire design (n = 84). The item analysis included two validation rounds using web questionnaires, a focus group and cognitive interviews. Results: From the initial pool, 155 items covering core domains and subdomains of person‐centred and coordinated care were selected for translation and qualitative item analysis. After translation, 44 items were excluded (duplicates). After the first validation round, 21 items were rephrased and 35 were excluded (due to low ratings, lack of comprehensibility, were duplicates or too specifically phrased). To reflect the ethical basis of person‐centred care, rewordings were also made to encompass the patient as an active partner in care and where communication and information goes two‐ways and care is co‐created. After the second round, 11 items were rephrased and 25 items were excluded (for being redundant/repetitive). Six new items were added (covering access to care, patient capabilities, mental well‐being and identifying goals). Conclusion: We have developed a first set of 57 items to proceed towards developing an item bank to measure the patient experiences of person‐centred care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Person Centred Coordinated Care (P3C) is a UK priority for patients, carers, professionals, commissioners and policy makers. Services are developing a range of approaches to deliver this care with a lack of tools to guide implementation. Methodology: A scoping review and critical examination of current policy, key literature and NHS guidelines, together with stakeholder involvement led to the identification of domains, subdomains and component activities (processes and behaviours) required to deliver P3C. These were validated through codesign with stakeholders via a series of workshops and cognitive interviews. Results: Six core domains of P3C were identified as follows: (i) my goals, (ii) care planning, (iii) transitions, (iv) decision making (v), information and communication and (vi) organizational support activities. These were populated by 29 core subdomains (question items). A number of response codes (components) to each question provide examples of the processes and activities that can be actioned to achieve each core subdomain of P3C. Conclusion: The P3C‐OCT provides a coherent approach to monitoring progress and supporting practice development towards P3C. It can be used to generate a shared understanding of the core domains of P3C at a service delivery level, and support reorganization of care for those with complex needs. The tool can reliably detect change over time, as demonstrated in a sample of 40 UK general practices. It is currently being used in four UK evaluations of new models of care and being further developed as a training tool for the delivery of P3C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to identify and describe the motivators for underage, curbside drinking leading to antisocial behavior and to use these insights to develop a suitable intervention to tackle this. A cross-sectional study was conducted with youths and key stakeholders. “Street drinking” was identified as the most common recreational activity for youths and was motivated by a lack of appropriate leisure services, peer pressure and behavior, and the local accessibility of alcohol. Antisocial behavior was a major theme associated with street drinking. Few studies have examined the root causes of youth drinking and antisocial behavior. Our findings show that deprivation, social bonds, and the symbolic capital attached to alcohol along with its relative cost and availability enhance its appeal to the young, and provide some illumination to the relationship between these related problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported measure (PRM) questionnaires were originally used in research to measure outcomes of intervention studies. They have now evolved into a diverse family of tools measuring a range of constructs including quality of life and experiences of care. Current health and social care policy increasingly advocates their use for embedding the patient voice into service redesign through new models of care such as person-centered coordinated care (P3C). If chosen carefully and used efficiently, these tools can help improve care delivery through a variety of novel ways, including system-level feedback for health care management and commissioning. Support and guidance on how to use these tools would be critical to achieve these goals.Objective: The objective of this study was to develop evidence-based guidance and support for the use of P3C-PRMs in health and social care policy through identification of PRMs that can be used to enhance the development of P3C, mapping P3C-PRMs against an existing model of domains of P3C, and integration and organization of the information in a user-friendly Web-based database.Methods: A pragmatic approach was used for the systematic identification of candidate P3C-PRMs, which aimed at balancing comprehensiveness and feasibility. This utilized a number of resources, including existing compendiums, peer-reviewed and gray literature (using a flexible search strategy), and stakeholder engagement (which included guidance for relevant clinical areas). A subset of those candidate measures (meeting prespecified eligibility criteria) was then mapped against a theoretical model of P3C, facilitating classification of the construct being measured and the subsequent generation of shortlists for generic P3C measures, specific aspects of P3C (eg, communication or decision making), and condition-specific measures (eg, diabetes, cancer) in priority areas, as highlighted by stakeholders.Results: In total, 328 P3C-PRMs were identified, which were used to populate a freely available Web-based database. Of these, 63 P3C-PRMs met the eligibility criteria for shortlisting and were classified according to their measurement constructs and mapped against the theoretical P3C model. We identified tools with the best coverage of P3C, thereby providing evidence of their content validity as outcome measures for new models of care. Transitions and medications were 2 areas currently poorly covered by existing measures. All the information is currently available at a user-friendly web-based portal (p3c.org.uk), which includes all relevant information on each measure, such as the constructs targeted and links to relevant literature, in addition to shortlists according to relevant constructs.Conclusions: A detailed compendium of P3C-PRMs has been developed using a pragmatic systematic approach supported by stakeholder engagement. Our user-friendly suite of tools is designed to act as a portal to the world of PRMs for P3C, and have utility for a broad audience, including (but not limited to) health care commissioners, managers, and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Loot boxes are purchasable randomised reward mechanisms in video games. Due to structural and psychological similarities with gambling, there are fears that loot box purchasing may be associated with problematic gambling. Whilst monthly expenditure is typically modest (i.e. < $20), the distribution is highly skewed, with a small number of high-level spenders, sometimes referred to as "whales". It is not known what proportion of industry profits are derived from such players, and whether they are typically wealthy individuals and/or problem gamblers.Methods: We used structured literature searches to identify surveys of gamers with open-access loot box data. The resulting datasets were aggregated, and correlations between loot box expenditure, problem gambling and earnings investigated using Spearman's rho correlations.Results: The combined open-access data comprised 7,767 loot box purchasers (5,933 with self-report earnings). Secondary analysis of this self-report data confirmed that disproportionate revenue appears to be generated from high-level spenders: the top 5% of spenders (> $100/month) represent half of loot box revenue. Previously reported correlations between problem gambling and loot box expenditure were confirmed, with an aggregate correlation of ρ = 0.34, p < .001. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between loot box spend and earnings ρ = 0.02, p = .10.Conclusion: Our secondary analysis suggests that games developers (unwittingly or not) are disproportionately profiting from moderate and high-risk gamblers, rather than high earning customers. Such patterns of spending mirror those observed with gambling revenues, and have implications for harm minimisation and ongoing policy debates around loot boxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]