Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices.

BACKGROUND: Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the progress to date. METHODS: Questionnaire development: We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined. Patient preference study: We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods. RESULTS: Questionnaire testing: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test. Patient preference study: We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were "adequate IOP control" and "drive a car during the day." CONCLUSIONS: Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients' perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions: Part I.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to report on the Center of Excellence for Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine at RAND Corporation. The overall project examined the appropriateness of chiropractic spinal manipulation and mobilization for chronic low back pain and chronic cervical pain using the RAND and University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method, including patient preferences and costs, to acknowledge the importance of patient-centered care in clinical decision-making. METHODS: This article is a narrative summary of the overall project and its inter-related components (ie, 4 Research Project Grants and 2 centers), including the Data Collection Core, whose activities and learning will be the subject of a following series of methods articles. RESULTS: The project team faced many challenges in accomplishing data collection goals. The processes we developed to overcome barriers may be of use to other researchers and for practitioners who may want to participate in such studies in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine. CONCLUSION: For this large, complex, successful project, we gathered online survey data, collected charts, and abstracted chart data from thousands of chiropractic patients. The present article delineates the challenges and lessons that were learned during this project so that others may gain from the authors' experience. This information may be of use to future research that collects data from independent practitioners and their patients because it provides what is needed to be successful in such studies and may encourage participation.

Does ambulatory process of care predict health-related quality of life outcomes for patients with chronic disease?

OBJECTIVE: The validity of quality of care measurement has important implications for practicing clinicians, their patients, and all involved with health care delivery. We used empirical data from managed care patients enrolled in west coast physician organizations to test the hypothesis that observed changes in health-related quality of life across a 2.5-year window reflecting process of care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Patient self-report data as well as clinically detailed medical record review regarding 963 patients with chronic disease associated with managed care from three west coast states. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study of change in health-related quality of life scores across 30 months as measured by change in SF-12 physical component scores. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Patient self-report and medical record abstraction. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found a positive relationship between better process scores and higher burden of illness (p<.05). After adjustment for burden of illness, using an instrumental variables approach revealed better process is associated with smaller declines in SF-12 scores across a 30-month observation window (p=.014). The application of the best quartile of process of care to patients currently receiving poor process is associated with a 4.24 increment in delta SF-12-physical component summary scores. CONCLUSIONS: The use of instrumental variables allowed us to demonstrate a significant relationship between better ambulatory process of care and better health-related quality of life. This finding underscores the importance of efforts to improve the process of care.

Variations in provider conceptions of integrative medicine.

Consumers often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and use it concurrently with conventional medicine to treat illnesses and promote wellness. However, prior studies demonstrate that these two paradigms are often not combined effectively. Consumers often do not tell physicians about CAM treatments or CAM practitioners about conventional treatments that they are using. This can lead to inefficient care and/or adverse interactions. There is also a lack of consensus about the structure and practice of integrative medicine among the various types of practitioners. This qualitative study aimed to identify key domains and develop a conceptual model of integrative medicine at the provider level, using a grounded theory approach. Purposive sampling was used to select 50 practitioners, including acupuncturists, chiropractors, internists/family practitioners, and physician acupuncturists in private practice and at academic medical centers in Los Angeles. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with practitioners and then identified core statements that describe practitioners' attitudes and behaviors toward integrative medicine. Core statements were free pile sorted to ascertain key domains of integrative medicine. Four key domains of integrative medicine were identified at the provider level: attitudes, knowledge, referral, and practice. Provider age, training, and practice setting also emerged as important factors in determining clinicians' "orientation" toward integrative medicine. "Dual-trained" practitioners, such as physician acupuncturists, exemplified clinicians with a greater orientation toward integrative medicine. They advocated an open-minded perspective about other healing traditions, promoting co-management with and making referrals to practitioners of other paradigms, and treating patients with both CAM and conventional healing modalities.