Healthcare professionals' perspective on delivering personalised and holistic care: using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve personalised and holistic care delivery by healthcare professionals are more likely to be effective if they target the factors influencing specific behaviours. This study reports on the development and testing of a questionnaire to identify perspectives of healthcare professionals' personalised and holistic care behaviours based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. METHODS: The study was conducted in public health services in Victoria, Australia. The questionnaire was developed and pilot-tested with behaviour change researchers and healthcare professionals. Doctors, nurses and midwives were recruited via notices and email invitations from Safer Care Victoria's website and mailing lists of healthcare professionals and invited to completed the questionnaire online (hosted on Qualtrics). Health services administrators and allied health professionals were excluded from the study. Confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to generate the model of best fit and group differences were tested using univariate tests. RESULTS: One hundred and four healthcare professionals from public health services in Victoria, Australia, completed the 39-item questionnaire focusing on specific personalised and holistic care behaviours. The final model consisted of 13 factors and 39 items, and CFA produced an acceptable fit, as well as adequate levels of discriminant validity and internal consistency (α = 0.60 to 0.84). Seven domains, "social influence", "motivation & goals", "environmental context and resources', "skills", 'beliefs about consequences", "behaviour regulation" and "nature of behaviour" were identified. Significant differences in the factors influencing these behaviours were found in groups with different years of experience and role seniority. These findings suggest that future interventions need to be targeted to specific groups. CONCLUSION: This study identified the specific behaviours and the factors associated with performance of personalised and holistic care among healthcare professionals. The findings suggest several interventions and policy functions may be taken to improve personalised and holistic care.

Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects.

To assess the effects of consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services. We updated a review published in 2006 and 2009 and revised the previous search strategies for key databases (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Web of Science) up to February 2020. Selection criteria included randomised controlled trials assessing consumer engagement in developing health care policy, research, or health services. The International Association for Public Participation, Spectrum of Public Participation was used to identify, describe, compare and analyse consumer engagement. Outcome measures were effects on people; effects on the policy/research/health care services; or process outcomes. We included 23 randomised controlled trials with a moderate or high risk of bias, involving 136,265 participants. Most consumer engagement strategies adopted a consultative approach during the development phase of interventions, targeted to health services. Based on four large cluster-randomised controlled trials, there is evidence that consumer engagement in the development and delivery of health services to enhance the care of pregnant women results in a reduction in neonatal, but not maternal, mortality. From other trials, there is evidence that involving consumers in developing patient information material results in material that is more relevant, readable and understandable for patients, and can improve knowledge. Mixed effects are reported of consumer-engagement on the development and/or implementation of health professional training. There is some evidence that using consumer interviewers instead of staff in satisfaction surveys can have a small influence on the results. There is some evidence that consumers may have a role in identifying a broader range of health care priorities that are complementary to those from professionals. There is some evidence that consumer engagement in monitoring and evaluating health services may impact perceptions of patient safety or quality of life. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials of the effects of consumer engagement on the relevance and positive outcomes of health policy, research and services. Health care consumers, providers, researchers and funders should continue to employ evidence-informed consumer engagement in their jurisdictions, with embedded evaluation. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018102595.

From policy to practice: prioritizing person-centred healthcare actions in the state of Victoria.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful involvement of consumers in healthcare is a high priority worldwide. In Victoria, Australia, a Partnering in Healthcare (PiH) policy framework was developed to guide health services in addressing consumer-focused healthcare improvements. The aim of this project was to identify priorities for improvement relating to the framework from the perspective of Victorian healthcare consumers and those who work in the healthcare sector. METHODS: A survey of Victorians representing key stakeholder groups was used to identify a "long list" of potential priorities, followed by a day-long summit to reduce this to a "short list" using explicit prioritization criteria. The survey was piloted prior to implementation, and diverse consumer groups and key health service providers were purposefully sampled for the summit. RESULTS: The survey (n = 680 respondents) generated 14-20 thematic categories across the proposed framework's five domains. The summit (n = 31 participants, including n = 21 consumer representatives) prioritized the following five areas based on the survey findings: communication, shared decision-making, (shared) care planning, health (system) literacy and people (not) around the patient. These priorities were underpinned by three cross-cutting principles: care/compassion/respect, accountability and diversity. CONCLUSION: Few studies have explicitly sought consumer input on health policy implementation. Adopting a codesign approach enabled the framework to be a shared foundation of healthcare improvement. The framework was subsequently launched in 2019. All Victorian health services are required to commit annually to improvement priorities against at least two framework domains.

Victorian healthcare experience survey 2016-2018; evaluation of interventions to improve the patient experience.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience is recognised as a quality of care indicator and increasingly health services are working on achieving set targets and improving their performance. Interventions at the point of care targeting communication with patients, patient engagement in care processes and discharge planning are associated with better patient experience. However, their efficacy and application to different contexts are still unclear. The aims were to describe the interventions implemented by health services to improve patient experience, their impact on overall patient experiences and specific experiences in areas of communication, discharge planning, patient education on treatment/tests, the physical environment and access to care. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of the Victorian Healthcare Experience inpatient surveys reported in September 2016 and 2018 and content analysis of interventions published in the Victorian Quality Account for 2017 from 59 public health services in Victoria, Australia. The interventions were categorised using an adapted taxonomy of professional interventions by the Cochrane EPOC Review Group. Univariate tests and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to test measure invariance across the 2016 and 2018 groups and examine the association between each of the intervention categories on overall patient experience measure and specific outcome measures. RESULTS: This study found that the overall patient experience was consistent (93%) between 2016 and 2018 samples. In comparing impact, a single intervention rather than none or multiple interventions in communication, respect and dignity and treatment and disease education areas were associated with a higher level of the overall patient experience. Interventions in waiting time, access to service, care continuity and emotional support categories were associated with a decrease in overall patient experience. CONCLUSION: This study found that to improve the overall patient experience, more focus is needed on evidence-based interventions in dignity and respect and emotional support. Furthermore, the choice of interventions should be guided by evidence of their efficacy and prioritising implementing one intervention well, provides more gains.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. RESULTS: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. RESULTS: Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy.

Basic health literacy is required for making health decisions. The aim of this chapter is to discuss the use of shared decision making interventions for supporting patient involvement in making health decisions. The chapter provides a definition of shared decision making and discusses the link between shared decision making and the three levels of health literacy: functional, communicative/interactive, and critical. The Interprofessional Shared Decision Making Model is used to identify the various players involved: the patient, the family/surrogate/significant others, decision coach, and health care professionals. When patients are involved in shared decision making, they have better health outcomes, better healthcare experiences, and likely lower costs. Yet, their degree of involvement is influenced by their level of health literacy. Interventions to facilitate shared decision making are patient decision aids, decision coaching, and question prompt lists. Patient decision aids have been shown to improve knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and chosen options congruent with patients' values. Decision coaching improves knowledge and patient satisfaction. Question prompts also improve satisfaction. When shared decision making interventions have been evaluated with patients presumed to have lower health literacy, they appeared to be more beneficial to disadvantaged groups compared to those with higher literacy or better socioeconomic status. However, special attention needs to be applied when designing these interventions for populations with lower literacy. Two case exemplars are provided to illustrate the design and choice of interventions to better support patients with varying levels of health literacy. Despite evidence indicating these interventions are effective for involving patients in shared decision making, few are used in routine clinical practice. To increase their uptake, implementation strategies need to overcome barriers interfering with their use. Implementation strategies include training health care professionals, adopting SDM interventions that target patients, such as patient decision aids, and monitor patients' decisional comfort using the SURE test. Integrating health literacy principles is important when developing interventions that facilitate shared decision making and essential to avoid inadvertently producing higher inequalities between patients with varying levels of health literacy.

Cultural competence education for health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Cultural competence education for health professionals aims to ensure all people receive equitable, effective health care, particularly those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. It has emerged as a strategy in high-income English-speaking countries in response to evidence of health disparities, structural inequalities, and poorer quality health care and outcomes among people from minority CALD backgrounds. However there is a paucity of evidence to link cultural competence education with patient, professional and organisational outcomes. To assess efficacy, for this review we developed a four-dimensional conceptual framework comprising educational content, pedagogical approach, structure of the intervention, and participant characteristics to provide consistency in describing and assessing interventions. We use the term 'CALD participants' when referring to minority CALD populations as a whole. When referring to participants in included studies we describe them in terms used by study authors. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cultural competence education interventions for health professionals on patient-related outcomes, health professional outcomes, and healthcare organisation outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to June 2012); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) (June 2012); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1988 to June 2012); CINAHL (EbscoHOST) (1981 to June 2012); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to June 2012); Proquest Dissertations and Theses database (1861 to October 2011); ERIC (CSA) (1966 to October 2011); LILACS (1982 to March 2012); and Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 Week 27 to June 2012).Searches in MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, ERIC and Current Contents were updated in February 2014. Searches in CINAHL were updated in March 2014.There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, and controlled clinical trials of educational interventions for health professionals working in health settings that aimed to improve: health outcomes of patients/consumers of minority cultural and linguistic backgrounds; knowledge, skills and attitudes of health professionals in delivering culturally competent care; and healthcare organisation performance in culturally competent care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the conceptual framework as the basis for data extraction. Two review authors independently extracted data on interventions, methods, and outcome measures and mapped them against the framework. Additional information was sought from study authors. We present results in narrative and tabular form. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs involving 337 healthcare professionals and 8400 patients; at least 3463 (41%) were from CALD backgrounds. Trials compared the effects of cultural competence training for health professionals, with no training. Three studies were from the USA, one from Canada and one from The Netherlands. They involved health professionals of diverse backgrounds, although most were not from CALD minorities. Cultural background was determined using a validated scale (one study), self-report (two studies) or not reported (two studies). The design effect from clustering meant an effective minimum sample size of 3164 CALD participants. No meta-analyses were performed. The quality of evidence for each outcome was judged to be low.Two trials comparing cultural competence training with no training found no evidence of effect for treatment outcomes, including the proportion of patients with diabetes achieving LDL cholesterol control targets (risk difference (RD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02; 1 study, USA, 2699 "black" patients, moderate quality), or change in weight loss (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.07, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.55, 1 study, USA, effective sample size (ESS) 68 patients, low quality).Health behaviour (client concordance with attendance) improved significantly among intervention participants compared with controls (relative risk (RR) 1.53, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.27, 1 study, USA, ESS 28 women, low quality). Involvement in care by "non-Western" patients (described as "mainly Turkish, Moroccan, Cape Verdean and Surinamese patients") with largely "Western" doctors improved in terms of mutual understanding (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42, 1 study, The Netherlands, 109 patients, low quality). Evaluations of care were mixed (three studies). Two studies found no evidence of effect in: proportion of patients reporting satisfaction with consultations (RD 0.14, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.31, 1 study, The Netherlands, 109 patients, low quality); patient scores of physician cultural competency (SMD 0.11 95% CI -0.63 to 0.85, 1 study, USA, ESS 68 "Caucasian" and "non-Causcasian" patients (described as Latino, African American, Asian and other, low quality). Client perceptions of health professionals were significantly higher in the intervention group (SMD 1.60 95% CI 1.05 to 2.15, 1 study, USA, ESS 28 "Black" women, low quality).No study assessed adverse outcomes.There was no evidence of effect on clinician awareness of "racial" differences in quality of care among clients at a USA health centre (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.94. P = 0.07) with no adjustment for clustering. Included studies did not measure other outcomes of interest. Sensitivity analyses using different values for the Intra-cluster coefficient (ICC) did not substantially alter the magnitude or significance of summary effect sizes.All four domains of the conceptual framework were addressed, suggesting agreement on core components of cultural competence education interventions may be possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cultural competence continues to be developed as a major strategy to address health inequities. Five studies assessed the effects of cultural competence education for health professionals on patient-related outcomes. There was positive, albeit low-quality evidence, showing improvements in the involvement of CALD patients. Findings either showed support for the educational interventions or no evidence of effect. No studies assessed adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence is insufficient to draw generalisable conclusions, largely due to heterogeneity of the interventions in content, scope, design, duration, implementation and outcomes selected.Further research is required to establish greater methodological rigour and uniformity on core components of education interventions, including how they are described and evaluated. Our conceptual framework provides a basis for establishing consensus to improve reporting and allow assessment across studies and populations. Future studies should measure the patient outcomes used: treatment outcomes; health behaviours; involvement in care and evaluations of care. Studies should also measure the impact of these types of interventions on healthcare organisations, as these are likely to affect uptake and sustainability.