Tools to measure barriers to medication management capacity in older adults: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Medication management capacity is a crucial component of medication adherence, particularly among older adults. Various factors, including physical abilities, cognitive functions, sensory capabilities, motivational, and environmental factors, influence older adults' ability to manage medications. It is, therefore, crucial to identify appropriate tools that allow clinicians to determine which factors may impact medication management capacity and, consequently, nonadherence to medications. PURPOSE: 1)To identify tools that measure physical, cognitive, sensory (vision, hearing, touch), motivational, and environmental barriers to medication self-management in older adults, and 2) to understand the extent to which these tools assess various barriers. METHODS: The scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. In June 2022, the relevant literature was identified by searching PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid Embase, Ovid IPA, EBSCOhost CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, and Scopus. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: In total, 7235 studies were identified. Following the removal of duplicates, 4607 articles were screened by title and abstract, of which 4253 did not meet the inclusion criteria. Three reviewers reviewed the full texts of the remaining 354 articles; among them, 41 articles, 4 theses and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria. From the included studies, 44 tools were identified that measured a combination of physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental barriers (n=19) or only cognition (n=13), vision (n=5), environmental factors (n=3), auditory (n=1), and motivational factors (n=1). The review also examined the psychometric properties of the identified tools and found that most of them had reported validity and reliability data. Several tools have demonstrated promise in assessing a combination of barriers with validity and reliability. These tools include the Self-Medication Assessment Tool (SMAT), ManageMed Screening (MMS), Self-Medication Risk Assessment Tool (RAT), HOME-Rx revised, and Medication Management Ability Assessment (MMAA). CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified 44 validated tools to measure various challenges that older adults encounter with medication management. However, no tool measures all five barriers (physical, cognitive, sensory, motivational, and environmental) to medication-taking at home. Therefore, utilizing a combination of tools would be most appropriate to measure these different aspects comprehensively. Further research is needed to develop a new comprehensive tool that simultaneously measures various barriers to medication self-management.

Researcher-patient partnership generated actionable recommendations, using quantitative evaluation and deliberative dialogue, to improve meaningful engagement.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) can be used to develop recommendations for improving the meaningfulness of patient engagement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: PEIRS-22 previously captured quantitative evaluation data from 15 patient partners in a self-study of the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance. Guided by deliberative dialogue, the current study involved 3 steps: (1) In-depth analysis and interpretation of the PEIRS-22 data produced a lay evidence summary with identified areas for improvement of meaningful engagement; (2) A 3-hour virtual workshop with patient partners and researchers generated initial recommendations; and (3) In two successive post-workshop surveys, ratings by workshop invitees led to consensus on the recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants attended the workshops and dialogued on 8 areas for improvement identified from the PEIRS-22 data. Twenty-eight unique initial recommendations led to consensus on 14 key recommendations organized across 4 categories: setting expectations for all team members, building trust and ongoing communication, providing opportunities to enhance learning and to develop skills, and acknowledging contributions of patient partners. CONCLUSION: Using PEIRS-22 data within a deliberate dialogue elucidated 14 actionable recommendations to support ongoing improvement of patient engagement at SPOR Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian health research initiative.

Beyond dyadic communication: Network of communication in inflammatory arthritis teams.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how communication is perceived and care is negotiated amongst IA healthcare teams by drawing on the perspectives of each team member. METHOD: This analysis drew on data from an ongoing three-year study exploring team-based IA care. We interviewed 11 participants including two men with IA and their family care providers and healthcare providers. We used a three-staged analytic process and integrated broad tenets of social network theory to understand the relational dimensions of team members experiences. RESULT: Analysis revealed three themes regarding communication and care: (1) seeking/sharing information, (2) striving to coordinate unified care, and (3) providing patients a voice. DISCUSSION: This study emphasizes the importance of understanding team dynamics beyond the dyad of patient and care provider. Negotiating power and decision-making in IA care is a dynamic process involving shifting levels of responsibility amongst a care team. Communication-based strategies that extend dyadic interactions may enhance teamwork and health outcomes in chronic conditions.

Advancing Patient-Partnered Research: Empowerment, Innovation and Evolution.

From the perspective of patient partners, the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit Engaging Multi-stakeholders for Patient Oriented-research Wider Effects and Reach Awards have facilitated successful patient-partnered research projects, which, in turn, have led to an evolution in patient partnerships and engagement strategies. The 15 projects profiled in this special issue point to the beneficial impacts of patient-partnered research.

Networks of Care: A Social Network Perspective of Distributed Multidisciplinary Care for People With Inflammatory Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how multidisciplinary inflammatory arthritis (IA) care is accessed from the perspectives of people with IA and their health care network members. METHODS: In this phenomenological study, we used purposive sampling to recruit patients with IA for less than 5 years and age of more than 18 years who spoke English and reported two or more health care network members. We conducted one-to-one interviews with patients and their health care network members. Data were analysed using a social network perspective. RESULTS: We interviewed 14 patient participants and 19 health care network members comprising health care providers and informal caregivers. An overarching theme of whole person (holistic) IA care was identified, with the following two broad multifaceted subthemes: 1) connected networks and whole person care and 2) network disconnect and disrupted access to care. The first subtheme notes how access to health care providers and social support was fundamental to holistic care and how care was facilitated by communication pathways that promoted care. The second subtheme illustrates impediments to access, including appointment time pressures, inadequacies in communication delivery modes, and family physicians' unfamiliarity with rheumatology care. Inequities in care were also reported. CONCLUSION: Participants shared a goal of whole person care. Although health care networks included multiple disciplines, they did not always provide coordinated multidisciplinary care. Communication modes, linkages between network actors, and organizational structures governed the flow of information and resources through networks and influenced access to equitable whole person care. The development of health care system structures to support the flow of information and resource transfer is needed to promote network collaboration and equitable access to resources.

Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement.

OBJECTIVE: To shorten the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to its most essential items and evaluate its measurement properties for assessing the degree of patients' and family caregivers' meaningful engagement as partners in research projects. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional web-based survey in Canada and the USA, and also paper-based in Canada. Participants were patients or family caregivers who had engaged in research projects within the last 3 years, were ≥17 years old, and communicated in English. Extensive psychometric analyses were conducted. RESULTS: 119 participants: 99 from Canada, 74 female, 51 aged 17-35 years and 50 aged 36-65 years, 60 had post-secondary education, and 74 were Caucasian/white. The original 37-item PEIRS was shortened to 22 items (PEIRS-22), mainly because of low inter-item correlations. PEIRS-22 had a single dominant construct that accounted for 55% of explained variance. Analysis of PEIRS-22 scores revealed the following: (1) acceptable floor and ceiling effects (<15%), (2) internal consistency (ordinal alpha = 0.96), (3) structural validity by fit to a Rasch measurement model, (4) construct validity by moderate correlations with the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool, (5) good test-retest reliability (ICC2,1  = 0.86) and (6) interpretability demonstrated by significant differences among PEIRS-22 scores across three levels of global meaningful engagement in research. CONCLUSIONS: The shortened PEIRS is valid and reliable for assessing the degree of meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement in research. It enables standardized assessment of engagement in research across various contexts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A researcher-initiated collaboration, patient partners contributed from study conception to manuscript write-up.

Evaluation of a preoperative personalized risk communication tool: a prospective before-and-after study.

PURPOSE: Patients want personalized information before surgery; most do not receive personalized risk estimates. Inadequate information contributes to poor experience and medicolegal complaints. We hypothesized that exposure to the Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment (PREDICT) app, a personalized risk communication tool, would improve patient knowledge and satisfaction after anesthesiology consultations compared with standard care. METHODS: We conducted a prospective clinical study (before-after design) and used patient-reported data to calculate personalized risks of morbidity, mortality, and expected length of stay using a locally calibrated National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator embedded in the PREDICT app. In the standard care (before) phase, the application's materials and output were not available to participants; in the PREDICT app (after) phase, personalized risks were communicated. Our primary outcome was knowledge score after the anesthesiology consultation. Secondary outcomes included patient satisfaction, anxiety, feasibility, and acceptability. RESULTS: We included 183 participants (90 before; 93 after). Compared with standard care phase, the PREDICT app phase had higher post-consultation: knowledge of risks (14.3% higher; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5 to 22.0; P < 0.001) and satisfaction (0.8 points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 1.4; P = 0.03). Anxiety was unchanged (- 1.9%; 95% CI, - 4.2 to 0.5; P = 0.13). Acceptability was high for patients and anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: Exposure to a patient-facing, personalized risk communication app improved knowledge of personalized risk and increased satisfaction for adults before elective inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); registered 5 February 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les patients veulent disposer d'informations personnalisées avant leur chirurgie, mais la plupart d'entre eux ne reçoivent pas d'estimations de leur risque personnalisées. Des informations inadéquates contribuent à une mauvaise expérience et à des plaintes médicolégales. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse qu'une exposition à l'application PREDICT (Personalized Risk Evaluation and Decision Making in Preoperative Clinical Assessment), un outil de communication du risque personnalisé, améliorerait les connaissances et la satisfaction des patients après leurs consultations en anesthésiologie comparativement à des soins standard. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude clinique prospective (de type avant-après) et utilisé les données rapportées par les patients afin de calculer leur risque personnalisé de morbidité et de mortalité, ainsi que la durée de séjour anticipée à l'aide d'un calculateur de risque tiré du Programme national d'amélioration de la qualité chirurgicale que nous avons calibré localement et intégré à l'application PREDICT. Dans la phase de soins standard (avant), le contenu et les résultats de l'application n'étaient pas divulgués aux participants; dans la phase comportant l'application PREDICT (après), les risques personnalisés étaient communiqués. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était le score des connaissances des patients après la consultation en anesthésiologie. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient la satisfaction des patients et leur niveau d'anxiété ainsi que la faisabilité et l'acceptabilité d'une telle approche. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus 183 participants (90 avant; 93 après). Comparativement à la phase de soins standard, la phase avec l'application PREDICT a démontré un niveau plus élevé de connaissances des risques post consultation (14,3 % plus élevé; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 6,5 à 22,0; P < 0,001) et de satisfaction (0,8 point; IC 95 %, 0,1 à 1,4; P = 0,03). L'anxiété est demeurée inchangée (− 1,9 %; IC 95 %, − 4,2 à 0,5; P = 0,13). L'acceptabilité était élevée, tant chez les patients que chez les anesthésiologistes. CONCLUSION: L'exposition des patients à une application de communication du risque personnalisé a amélioré leurs connaissances de leur risque personnalisé et augmenté la satisfaction des adultes avant une chirurgie non urgente et non ambulatoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03422133); enregistrée le 5 février 2018.

Appropriating and asserting power on inflammatory arthritis teams: A social network perspective.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic interventions for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) increasingly involve multidisciplinary teams and strive to foster patient-centred care and shared decision making. Participation in health-care decisions requires patients to assert themselves and negotiate power in encounters with clinicians; however, clinical contexts often afford less authority for patients than clinicians. This disadvantage may inhibit patients' involvement in their own health care. OBJECTIVE: To identify communication attributes, IA patients use to influence and negotiate their treatment with members of their health-care network. METHOD: A qualitative social network approach was used to analyse data from a larger study that investigated IA patients' overall experiences of multidisciplinary care. Fourteen patients with IA attended individual semi-structured interviews. Researchers used thematic analysis to identify patterns of assertiveness and influence in the data. RESULTS: Participants experienced loss of identity, control and agency in addition to the physical symptoms of IA. However, they had a sense of personal responsibility for managing their health care. Perceptions of health-care team support enhanced patients' influence in treatment negotiations. Notably, there appeared to be an underlying tension between being empowered or disempowered. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The findings have significant implications for treatment decision communication approaches to IA care. A social network perspective may provide a pathway for clinicians to better understand the complexities of communication with their patients. This approach may reduce unequal power dynamics that occur within clinician/patient interactions and afford people with IA agency, control and affirmation of identity within their health-care network.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.

Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical testing, sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy: a clinical practice guideline

Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?"

Exploring the role of teams and technology in patients' medication decision making.

OBJECTIVES: We know little about how electronic health records (EHRs) should be designed to help patients, pharmacists, and physicians participate in interprofessional shared decision making. We used a qualitative approach to understand better how patients make decisions with their health care team, how this information influences decision making about their medications, and finally, how this process can be improved through the use of EHRs. DESIGN: Participants from 4 regions across Canada took part in a semistructured interview and completed a brief demographic survey. The interview transcripts were thematically analyzed by means of the multidisciplinary framework method. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirty participants, 18 years of age and older with at least one chronic illness, were recruited from across Canada. We interviewed participants in their homes, at the school of pharmacy, or another location of their choosing. RESULTS: We identified 4 main themes: (1) complexity of patient decision making: who, where, what, when, why; (2) relationships with physicians and pharmacists: who do I trust for what?; (3) accessing health information for decision making: how much and from where?; and (4) patients' methods of managing information for health decision making. Across the themes, participants appreciated expert advice from professionals and wanted to be informed about all options, despite concerns about limited knowledge. EHRs were perceived as a potential solution to many of the barriers identified. CONCLUSION: Patients make decisions with their health care providers as well as with family and friends. The pharmacist and physicians play different roles in helping patients in making decisions. We found that making EHRs accessible not only to health care providers but also to patients can provide a cohesive and clear context for making medication-related decisions. EHRs may facilitate clear communication, foster interprofessional understanding, and improve patient access to their health information. Future research should examine how to develop EHRs that are adaptive to user needs and desires.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective. METHODS: Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.

Physician and Pharmacist Medication Decision-Making in the Time of Electronic Health Records: Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. METHODS: This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. CONCLUSIONS: We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.

An empirically based conceptual framework for fostering meaningful patient engagement in research.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement in research (PEIR) is promoted to improve the relevance and quality of health research, but has little conceptualization derived from empirical data. OBJECTIVE: To address this issue, we sought to develop an empirically based conceptual framework for meaningful PEIR founded on a patient perspective. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with 18 patient research partners from a research centre-affiliated patient advisory board. Data analysis involved three phases: identifying the themes, developing a framework and confirming the framework. We coded and organized the data, and abstracted, illustrated, described and explored the emergent themes using thematic analysis. Directed content analysis was conducted to derive concepts from 18 publications related to PEIR to supplement, confirm or refute, and extend the emergent conceptual framework. The framework was reviewed by four patient research partners on our research team. RESULTS: Participants' experiences of working with researchers were generally positive. Eight themes emerged: procedural requirements, convenience, contributions, support, team interaction, research environment, feel valued and benefits. These themes were interconnected and formed a conceptual framework to explain the phenomenon of meaningful PEIR from a patient perspective. This framework, the PEIR Framework, was endorsed by the patient research partners on our team. CONCLUSIONS: The PEIR Framework provides guidance on aspects of PEIR to address for meaningful PEIR. It could be particularly useful when patient-researcher partnerships are led by researchers with little experience of engaging patients in research.

Evolving Patient-Researcher Collaboration: An Illustrative Case Study of a Patient-Led Knowledge Translation Event.

Patient engagement occurs when patients actively collaborate in health research in ways that are meaningful to them. Resources to facilitate patient engagement have been developed, but their approach is mainly toward building competencies in the early stages of forming new practices of patient engagement. This paper describes a patient-led collaboration in rheumatology, in the context of an established patient-researcher partnership. Using a case study approach, we report on a research knowledge translation event, titled eROAR2013 (Reaching Out with Arthritis Research), led by members of the Arthritis Patient Advisory Board (APAB), which is a group of volunteer advocates living with arthritis based at Arthritis Research Canada. We provide an overview of APAB's decade-long history, describe the planning and the event itself, and report on the challenges encountered, reflections and solutions pertinent for sustaining patient-researcher collaborative practices.

Applying the Resilient Health System Framework for Universal Health Coverage.

Since the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata affirming health as a fundamental human right, policy-makers and stakeholders have proposed many different strategies to achieve the goal of 'health for all'. However, globally there still remains a lack of access to health information and quality health care, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Digital health holds great promise to improve access and quality of care. We propose using the "resilient health system framework" as a guide to scale-up digital health as a means to achieve universal health care (UHC) and health for all. This article serves as a call to action for all governments to include population-based digital health tools as a foundational element in on-going health system priorities and service delivery.