Search

Objective: To understand the contribution of digital medicine tools (eg, continuous glucose monitoring systems, scheduling, and messaging applications) to treatment burden in patients with diabetes. Patients and Methods: Between October and November 2023, we invited patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to participate in semistructured interviews. The interviewees completed the Treatment Burden Questionnaire as they reflected on how digital medicine tools affect their daily routines. A published taxonomy of treatment burden guided the qualitative content analysis of interview transcripts. Results: In total, 20 patients agreed to participate and completed interviews (aged 21-77 years, 55% female, 60% living with type 2 diabetes). We found 5 categories of tasks related to the use of digital medicine tools that patients had to complete (eg, calibrating continuous glucose monitors), 3 factors that made these tasks burdensome (eg, cost of device replacements), and 2 categories of consequences of burdensome tasks on patient wellbeing (eg, fatigue from device alarms). Conclusion: Patients identified how digital medicine tools contribute to their treatment burden. The resulting digital burden taxonomy can be used to inform the design, implementation, and prescription of digital medicine tools including support for patients as they normalize them in their lives.

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of the ICAN Discussion Aid in improving patients' experience of receiving care for their chronic conditions and health professionals' experience of providing their care.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, mixed-methods, cluster-randomized trial of the ICAN Discussion Aid at 8 clinics in 4 independent health systems in the US from January 2017 and to August 2018. Sites were randomized 1:1 in pairs. Participants were primary care health professionals and their adult patients with ≥1 chronic condition. Quantitative outcomes were health professional assessment of chronic illness care and relational coordination and patient-reported self-efficacy to manage chronic disease, self-efficacy to communicate with clinician, treatment burden, assessment of chronic illness care, general health, and disruption from illness and treatment. Uptake of ICAN was assessed with patient qualitative interviews, clinician focus groups/interviews, visit video recordings, and chart review.Results98 clinicians and 1733 patients participated. We found no significant differences between ICAN and usual care sites in mixed effect models on main outcome measures. In adjusted difference-in-differences analyses, we found patient self-efficacy to manage chronic disease (mean difference 0.61 (SE 0.27), p = 0.023), patient self-efficacy to communicate with their clinician (mean difference 0.31 (SE 0.14), p = 0.032), and health professional assessment of chronic illness care (1.42 (SE 0.52), p = 0.007) were significantly better at ICAN sites. Chart review indicated the aid was implemented in 19% of eligible encounters. Qualitative analyses highlighted limited implementation of ICAN as intended overall due to varying clinic challenges but showed that ICAN use as intended was a valued addition to the visit.ConclusionsWhen patients and clinicians use ICAN as intended, which seldom occurred, important conversations emerge. This qualitative finding did not parlay into statistically significant effects on most outcomes of interest.Trial registrationThe trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (# NCT03017196).

Rational and objectivePrognosis provides critical knowledge for shared decision making between patients and clinicians. While several prognostic indices for mortality in dialysis patients have been developed, their performance among elderly patients initiating dialysis is unknown, despite great need for reliable prognostication in that context. To assess the performance of 6 previously validated prognostic indices to predict 3 and/or 6 months mortality in a cohort of elderly incident dialysis patients.Study designValidation study of prognostic indices using retrospective cohort data. Indices were compared using the concordance ("c")-statistic, i.e. area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Calibration, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also calculated.Setting & participantsIncident elderly (age ≥75 years; n = 349) dialysis patients at a tertiary referral center.Established predictorsVariables for six validated prognostic indices for short term (3 and 6 month) mortality prediction (Foley, NCI, REIN, updated REIN, Thamer, and Wick) were extracted from the electronic medical record. The indices were individually applied as per each index specifications to predict 3- and/or 6-month mortality.ResultsIn our cohort of 349 patients, mean age was 81.5±4.4 years, 66% were male, and median survival was 351 days. The c-statistic for the risk prediction indices ranged from 0.57 to 0.73. Wick ROC 0.73 (0.68, 0.78) and Foley 0.67 (0.61, 0.73) indices performed best. The Foley index was weakly calibrated with poor overall model fit (p LimitationsSmall sample size, use of secondary data, need for imputation, homogeneous population.ConclusionMost predictive indices for mortality performed moderately in our incident dialysis population. The Wick and Foley indices were the best performing, but had issues with under and over calibration. More accurate indices for predicting survival in older patients with kidney failure are needed.

BackgroundPeople with atrial fibrillation (AF) have lower reported quality of life and increased risk of heart attack, death, and stroke. Lifestyle modifications can improve arrhythmia-free survival/symptom severity. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) have been effective at targeting lifestyle change in other chronic diseases and may be beneficial for patients with AF.ObjectiveTo determine if perceived self-management and satisfaction with provider communication differed between patients who participated in SMAs compared to patients in standard care. Secondary objectives were to examine differences between groups for knowledge about AF, symptom severity, and healthcare utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected where patients were assigned to either standard care (n = 62) or a SMA (n = 59). Surveys were administered at pre-procedure, 3, and 6 months.ResultsPerceived self-management was not significantly different at baseline (p = 0.95) or 6 months (p = 0.21). Patients in SMAs reported more knowledge gain at baseline (p = 0.01), and higher goal setting at 6 months (p = 0.0045). Symptom severity for both groups followed similar trends.ConclusionPatients with AF who participated in SMAs had similar perceived self-management, patient satisfaction with provider communication, symptom severity, and healthcare utilization with their counterparts, but had a statistically significant improvement in knowledge about their disease.

Abstract Background Patients with chronic conditions must mobilize capacity to access and use healthcare and enact self-care. In order for clinicians to create feasible treatment plans with patients, they must appreciate the limits and possibilities of patient capacity. This study seeks to characterize the amount, nature, and comprehensiveness of the information about patient capacity documented in the medical record. Methods In this mixed-methods study, we extracted notes about 6 capacity domains from the medical records of 100 patients receiving care from 15 primary care clinicians at a single practice. Using a generalized linear model to account for repeated measures across multiple encounters, we calculated the rate of documented domains per encounter per patient adjusted for appointment type and number. Following quantitative analyses, we purposefully selected records to conduct inductive content analysis. Results After adjusting for number of appointments and appointment type, primary care notes contained the most mentions of capacity. Physical capacity was most noted, followed by personal, emotional, social, financial, and environmental. Qualitatively, we found three documentation patterns: patients with broad capacity notes, patients with predominantly physical domain capacity notes, and patients with capacity notes mostly in domains other than physical. Records contained almost no mention of patients’ environmental or financial capacity, or of how they coped with capacity limitations. Rarely, did notes ever mention how well patients interacted with their social network or what support they provided to the patient in managing their health. Conclusion Medical records scarcely document patient capacity. This may impair the ability of clinicians to determine how patients can handle patient work, at what point patient capacity might become overwhelmed leading to poor adherence and health outcomes, and how best to craft feasible treatment programs that patients can implement with high fidelity.

Abstract Background Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. Methods As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items—before looking at participant responses—according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. Results The themes we found, “Two Systems, Two Worlds,” “Not My Job,” and “Seeing is Believing,” highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians’ limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. Conclusions Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people’s efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of—if not at odds with—healthcare.

Purpose To pilot test the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters.Methods A pre–post study involving 11 clinicians and 100 patients was conducted at two primary care clinics within a single health system in the Midwest. The study examined clinicians’ perceptions about ICAN feasibility, patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions about encounter success, videographic differences in encounter topics, and medication adherence 6 months after an ICAN encounter.Results 39/40 control encounters and 45/60 ICAN encounters yielded usable data. Clinicians reported ICAN use was feasible. In ICAN encounters, patients discussed diet, being active and taking medications more. Clinicians scored themselves poorer regarding visit success than their patients scored them; this effect was more pronounced in ICAN encounters. ICAN did not improve 6-month medication adherence or lengthen visits.Conclusion This pilot study suggests that using ICAN in primary care is feasible, efficient and capable of modifying conversations. With lessons learned in this pilot, we are conducting a randomised trial of ICAN versus usual care in diverse clinical settings.Trial registration number NCT02390570.