Randomized controlled study to evaluate the impact of flexible patient-controlled visits in people with type 1 diabetes: The DiabetesFlex Trial.

AIM: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of health care-initiated visits versus patient-controlled flexible visits on clinical and patient-reported outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: The DiabetesFlex trial was a randomized controlled, pragmatic non-inferiority 15-month follow-up study comparing standard care (face-to-face visits every 4 months) with DiabetesFlex (patient-controlled flexible visits using patient-reported, outcome-based telehealth follow-up). Of 343 enrolled participants, 160 in each group completed the study. The primary outcome was mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 15-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, lipid levels, frequency of visits, the World Health Organization score-five well-being-index (WHO-5), the Problem Areas In Diabetes (PAID) scale and experience of participation in own care (participation score). RESULTS: The adjusted mean difference in HbA1c between standard care and DiabetesFlex was similar and below the predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (-0.03% [95%CI: 0.15, 0.11]/-0.27 mmol/mol [-1.71, 1.16]). No intergroup mean changes in lipid or blood pressure were observed. Conversely, DiabetesFlex participants presented an increased mean WHO-5 index of 4.5 (1.3, 7.3), participation score of 1.1 (0.5, 2.0), and decreased PAID score of -4.8 (-7.1, -2.6) compared with standard care. During follow-up, DiabetesFlex participants actively changed 23% of face-to-face visits to telephone consultations, cancelled more visits (17% vs. 9%), and stayed away without cancellation less often (2% vs. 8%). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard care, flexible patient-controlled visits combined with patient-reported outcomes in participants with metabolic controlled type 1 diabetes and good psychological well-being further improved diabetes-related well-being and decreased face-to-face visits while maintaining safe diabetes management.

Non-curative surgical oncology: postoperative needs and preferences.

OBJECTIVE: When intended curative cancer surgery is not completed, the postoperative transition to palliative care represents a prognostic landmark to patients and their families. In patients referred for highly specialised surgery for peritoneal metastases from the intestinal tract and ovaries, surgery is not performed in approximately 25%. Still, little is known of their postoperative needs and preferences. METHODS: We performed 14 qualitative research interviews with 12 patients (four men and eight women, aged 41-85 years) undergoing surgery for peritoneal metastases; five of these were together with a relative. Five of the participants had ovarian, and seven had colorectal cancer (four men and seven women). The interviews followed a semistructured interview guide, were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using meaning condensation. RESULTS: Patients accepted the surgeon's decision of refraining from the intended surgery. During the postoperative period, when realising the prognostic consequences, their needs changed rapidly, in some cases from day to day, and gradually they developed a reoriented focus on their lives. The findings were framed by two themes dealing with 'Change in treatment strategy' and 'Physical and psychosocial aspects of not undergoing curative surgery'. CONCLUSION: When curative cancer surgery is not completed as intended, patient-centred communication is essential for patients' psychosocial reorientation and quality of life. Further, to support their well-being and action competences, patients have a need for basic supportive care and physical restitution. Finally, high-quality postoperative palliative care needs to be coordinated, which requires staff training and reorganisation of pathways.

Patient involvement in the development of a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention: evaluation of a shared working group with patients and researchers.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: The aim of this paper is to present our experiences from a shared working group (SWG) with patient representatives and researchers. The SWG collaborated on developing a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention for women treated for breast cancer and men treated for prostate cancer and on the planning of an effect study of this intervention.The SWG included five patient representatives (three women treated for breast cancer and two men treated for prostate cancer), four researchers and a research assistant. The SWG met four times during the year where the intervention was developed. Data material for the present evaluation study comprises meeting documents, transcriptions of interviews with two patient representatives and three researchers from the SWG, and the primary investigator's field notes.The collaboration between patient representatives and researchers informed both the intervention and the research planning and was rewarding for the involved participants. The well-structured organization of the collaboration had a positive impact on the outcome. In addition, clear goals and clarification of expectations were important. Challenges were encountered in keeping continuity between meetings and carrying out homework as intended. It was crucial for the collaboration that patient representatives had specific knowledge, interest and motivation for the project.Involving patient representatives in the research process heightened the relevancy of the research and the quality of its contents. The SWG gave patient representatives and researchers a better mutual understanding. Overall, the conclusion is that the benefits obtained by involving patient representatives exceeds the additional costs this involves. ABSTRACT: Background The aim of the paper is to present experiences of researchers collaborating with patients in a shared working group comprising patient representatives and researchers. Experiences are deduced from the evaluation of the work in the working group, which collaborated on developing a psychosocial cancer rehabilitation intervention for women treated for breast cancer and men treated for prostate cancer and the planning of a randomized controlled trial that investigates the effect of this intervention. Methods Five patient representatives (three women treated for breast cancer and two men treated for prostate cancer), four researchers and a research assistant participated in the shared working group. The shared working group met four times during the year the intervention was developed. Data material for the present evaluation study was collected from meeting documents, transcriptions of interviews with two patient representatives and three researchers from the shared working group, and the primary investigator's field notes. The data analysis was guided by Sandelowski's qualitative description strategy. Results The collaboration between patient representatives and researchers informed the intervention and the research planning and was rewarding for the involved participants. The well-structured organization of the collaboration had a positive impact on the outcome. Also, clear goals and clarification of expectations were important. Challenges were encountered in ensuring continuity between meetings and carrying out homework as intended. It was considered crucial for the collaboration to recruit patient representatives with specific knowledge, interest and motivation for the project. The direct costs related to the shared working group, including meals, transportation and salary for the research assistant, were small. However, the indirect costs in terms of time spent on planning patient-involving elements of, organizing meetings and evaluation were substantial and demanded a significant amount of extra work for the primary investigator. Conclusion Involving patients in the research process heightened the relevancy of the research and the quality of the research contents. The shared working group influenced both patient representatives and researchers and gave them a better mutual understanding. Overall, the conclusion is that the benefits obtained by involving patients exceed the additional costs related to patient involvement.