Developing a Patient- and Family-Centered Research Agenda for Hospital Medicine: The Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient, caregiver, and other stakeholder priorities have not been robustly incorporated into directing hospital-based research and improvement efforts. OBJECTIVE: To systematically engage stakeholders to identify important questions of adult hospitalized patients and to create a prioritized research agenda for improving the care of adult hospitalized patients. DESIGN: A collaborative approach to stakeholder engagement and research question prioritization. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Researchers and patients from eight academic and community medical centers partnered with 39 patient, caregiver, professional, research, and medical organizations. METHODS: We applied established standards for formulating research questions and stakeholder engagement. This included: a multi-pronged, inclusive patient and stakeholder engagement strategy; surveys of patients and stakeholder organizations to identify important questions; content analysis of submitted questions; and a 2-day in-person meeting with stakeholder organization representatives and patient partners to prioritize and rank submitted questions. RESULTS: A total of 499 respondents including patients, caregivers, healthcare providers, and researchers from 39 organizations submitted 782 research questions. These questions were categorized into 70 distinct topics-52 that were health system related and 18 disease specific. From these categories, we identified 36 common questions; the final 11 questions were identified, prioritized and ranked during an in-person priority-setting meeting. Questions considered highest priority related to ensuring shared treatment and goals of care decision making and improving hospital discharge handoff to other care facilities and providers. CONCLUSION: We identified 11 prioritized research questions that should galvanize funders, researchers, and patient advocates to address and improve the care of hospitalized adult patients.

Patients' views of receiving lessons in the Alexander technique and an exercise prescription for managing back pain in the ATEAM trial.

BACKGROUND: Lessons in the Alexander Technique and exercise prescription proved effective for managing low back pain in primary care in a clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To understand trial participants' expectations and experiences of the Alexander Technique and exercise prescription. METHODS: A questionnaire assessing attitudes to the intervention, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, was completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up by 183 people assigned to lessons in the Alexander Technique and 176 people assigned to exercise prescription. Semi-structured interviews to assess the beliefs contributing to attitudes to the intervention were carried out at baseline with14 people assigned to the lessons in the Alexander Technique and 16 to exercise prescription, and at follow-up with 15 members of the baseline sample. RESULTS: Questionnaire responses indicated that attitudes to both interventions were positive at baseline but became more positive at follow-up only in those assigned to lessons in the Alexander Technique. Thematic analysis of the interviews suggested that at follow-up many patients who had learned the Alexander Technique felt they could manage back pain better. Whereas many obstacles to exercising were reported, few barriers to learning the Alexander Technique were described, since it 'made sense', could be practiced while carrying out everyday activities or relaxing, and the teachers provided personal advice and support. CONCLUSION: Using the Alexander Technique was viewed as effective by most patients. Acceptability may have been superior to exercise because of a convincing rationale and social support and a better perceived fit with the patient's particular symptoms and lifestyle.