Consumer participation in quality improvements for chronic disease care: development and evaluation of an interactive patient-centered survey to identify preferred service initiatives.

BACKGROUND: With increasing attention given to the quality of chronic disease care, a measurement approach that empowers consumers to participate in improving quality of care and enables health services to systematically introduce patient-centered initiatives is needed. A Web-based survey with complex adaptive questioning and interactive survey items would allow consumers to easily identify and prioritize detailed service initiatives. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop and test a Web-based survey capable of identifying and prioritizing patient-centered initiatives in chronic disease outpatient services. Testing included (1) test-retest reliability, (2) patient-perceived acceptability of the survey content and delivery mode, and (3) average completion time, completion rates, and Flesch-Kincaid reading score. METHODS: In Phase I, the Web-based Consumer Preferences Survey was developed based on a structured literature review and iterative feedback from expert groups of service providers and consumers. The touchscreen survey contained 23 general initiatives, 110 specific initiatives available through adaptive questioning, and a relative prioritization exercise. In Phase II, a pilot study was conducted within 4 outpatient clinics to evaluate the reliability properties, patient-perceived acceptability, and feasibility of the survey. Eligible participants were approached to complete the survey while waiting for an appointment or receiving intravenous therapy. The age and gender of nonconsenters was estimated to ascertain consent bias. Participants with a subsequent appointment within 14 days were asked to complete the survey for a second time. RESULTS: A total of 741 of 1042 individuals consented to participate (71.11% consent), 529 of 741 completed all survey content (78.9% completion), and 39 of 68 completed the test-retest component. Substantial or moderate reliability (Cohen's kappa>0.4) was reported for 16 of 20 general initiatives with observed percentage agreement ranging from 82.1%-100.0%. The majority of participants indicated the Web-based survey was easy to complete (97.9%, 531/543) and comprehensive (93.1%, 505/543). Participants also reported the interactive relative prioritization exercise was easy to complete (97.0%, 189/195) and helped them to decide which initiatives were of most importance (84.6%, 165/195). Average completion time was 8.54 minutes (SD 3.91) and the Flesch-Kincaid reading level was 6.8. Overall, 84.6% (447/529) of participants indicated a willingness to complete a similar survey again. CONCLUSIONS: The Web-based Consumer Preferences Survey is sufficiently reliable and highly acceptable to patients. Based on completion times and reading level, this tool could be integrated in routine clinical practice and allows consumers to easily participate in quality evaluation. Results provide a comprehensive list of patient-prioritized initiatives for patients with major chronic conditions and delivers practice-ready evidence to guide improvements in patient-centered care.

Do indigenous health curricula in health science education reduce disparities in health care outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic literature review to determine the scope, rationales, and evaluation foci of indigenous health curricula included in university-based professional training of health care service providers. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Australasian Medical Index, ATSIhealth (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Bibliography), CINAHL PLUS, MEDLINE, SCOPUS version 4, and Web of Science databases using relevant keywords. Our initial search identified 1247 articles and our refined search identified 57 articles. Thirty-six articles published between 1999 and 2011 that referred to indigenous health-related curricula within university health science courses were selected for review. DATA SYNTHESIS: While almost all the articles were explicit that improving indigenous health was an aim of their curriculum, none evaluated the impact of curricula on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: There appears to be a widespread assumption in the literature that improving practitioner skills, knowledge and attitudes will lead to improvements in indigenous health outcomes. The literature showed evidence of efforts towards evaluating learner (student) outcomes, but no evidence of evaluation of patient outcomes. We need to begin to design methods that focus on evaluating the impacts of indigenous health curricula on patient outcomes, while continuing to investigate the impact of curricula on learner outcomes.