Search

Context: Patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs) provide important insights into the challenges experienced when living with a chronic condition. Although patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist in audiology, there are no validated PREMs to help clinicians understand patient perspectives and identify areas where patients may need additional support or interventions. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate content for the new 'My Hearing PREM', which captures lived experiences of hearing loss from patients' perspectives. Design: My Hearing PREM was developed and tested in two key phases. Phase 1 involved generating the PREM prototype in accordance with our conceptual model of the lived experience of hearing loss. In Phase 2, cognitive interviews were conducted with adults with hearing loss to appraise the content of the PREM (relevance, clarity, acceptability and comprehensiveness) and assess its respondent burden. Key stakeholders (e.g., adults with hearing loss, patient and public representatives, clinicians and researchers) were consulted throughout Phases 1 and 2 to review and refine the PREM. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Setting and Participants: Sixteen participants (aged 16 years and over) with hearing loss took part in cognitive interviews, recruited from UK audiology departments and non‐clinical settings (e.g., lip‐reading classes, national charity links and social media). Results: Most PREM items were found to be relevant, clear, acceptable and comprehensive. Several problems were identified, including items not working well with the response scale options, irrelevant questions and a lack of clarity about terms (e.g., healthcare professionals) and whether questions should be answered based on the use of hearing aids (or not). The PREM was amended accordingly. Conclusions: Currently, no hearing loss‐specific PREMs exist in audiology. Involving multiple stakeholders in the development of the PREM helped to ensure that the items were relevant, clear, acceptable and comprehensive. The PREM is undergoing further evaluation and refinement in preparation for investigating the feasibility of implementing it into clinical practice. Patient or Public Contribution: Ongoing Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) with key groups (South Asian Women's groups, young people's groups, learning disability networks and student populations) was integral to the study. PPIE members reviewed patient information sheets and consent forms, advised on recruitment, reviewed the interview schedule and checked coding and analysis procedures. PPIE members provided feedback on the PREM's comprehensibility. Members of the public, including adults attending lip‐reading classes and hearing aid users from the South Asian community, provided feedback on iterative PREM drafts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives and importance of the study: Adult literacy programs aim to empower learners to participate more effectively in everyday life. This includes programs with health content embedded in curricula to target health literacy. Adult learners who attend these programs represent a heterogeneous population, but include a high proportion of hard-to-reach or socially disadvantaged groups in terms of age, ethnicity, educational background, language and prevalence of learning disabilities. In 2014, we conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a health literacy program in adult basic education classes across New South Wales, Australia. This paper reports findings from a qualitative study exploring learners' experience of the course and its perceived impact on their lives, as well as their understanding and confidence about health. Study type: Qualitative interview study. Method: We conducted semistructured interviews as part of the evaluation of the 18-week health literacy program, with participants purposively recruited from six health literacy classes (n = 22). Researchers trained in qualitative methods interviewed adult learners either face to face or over the phone using a topic guide. Data was analysed using the Framework method, a matrixbased approach to thematic analysis. Results: The majority of interviewees were female, lived in metropolitan areas and were from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Most had existing self-reported health problems and inadequate functional health literacy. Most participants described positive impacts of the health literacy course on their language, literacy and numeracy skills, functional health literacy skills, and health knowledge. They also reported being able to translate this into health actions including interacting with providers, accessing and using healthcare, and managing health and illness (e.g. making healthier food choices). Learners also described positive social outcomes of the course, including feelings of connectedness and interpersonal trust within a new network of learners, and reported sharing new knowledge with others in their communities. Conclusions: The findings add value to existing limited evidence that has demonstrated the untapped potential of adult basic education to develop health literacy skills among socially disadvantaged groups. Learners valued the opportunity to share experiences in structured group learning, and reported confidence to transfer new knowledge into their home and wider social network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Low health literacy leads to poor knowledge and understanding of health information, delayed diagnosis, lower use of preventative medicines/health services, increased likelihood of hospitalisation, and increased patient anxiety. Effective communication facilitates patient understanding and helps patients to manage the adverse side-effects associated with treatment. It is not yet known whether radiation therapists in Ireland tailor their communication to match a patient's health literacy level. The purpose of this research was to investigate radiation therapists' knowledge and awareness of health literacy and perceptions of their role in supporting patients with low health literacy.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen radiation therapists working in four radiotherapy departments in Ireland. Data were analysed using the framework approach.Results: Through discussions with participants, it was apparent that radiation therapists had limited knowledge of the concept of health literacy. Common themes arose from the interviews with four key themes identified: 1. Strategies used to identify patients' health literacy 2. Perceived effect of low health literacy 3. Obstacles faced when addressing low health literacy 4. Recommendations to support lower health literacy groups CONCLUSION: Currently, radiation therapists show some knowledge and awareness of health literacy, but an increased awareness of the prevalence of low health literacy and a structured approach to supporting patients would allow radiation therapists to more effectively communicate with patients, thus improving their treatment experience and reducing the risk of adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study compares and contrasts the perspectives of healthcare professionals who treat hepatitis C with those of patients in treatment. Comparative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals and 20 patients undergoing treatment for hepatitis C concluded that patients and healthcare professionals disagreed on the source of communication breakdowns, but both felt that individualised clinical information improved adherence. Stigma was recognised as a barrier to treatment adherence by both patients and healthcare professionals. Limitations of the healthcare system, such as patients receiving inconsistent information and long wait times, negatively impacted both patients and providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative study compares and contrasts the perspectives of healthcare professionals who treat hepatitis C with those of patients in treatment. Comparative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 20 healthcare professionals and 20 patients undergoing treatment for hepatitis C concluded that patients and healthcare professionals disagreed on the source of communication breakdowns, but both felt that individualised clinical information improved adherence. Stigma was recognised as a barrier to treatment adherence by both patients and healthcare professionals. Limitations of the healthcare system, such as patients receiving inconsistent information and long wait times, negatively impacted both patients and providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]