Self-management support (SMS) in primary care practice: a qualitative focus group study of care professionals' experiences.

BACKGROUND: To support self-management of chronically ill persons, innovative approaches of care practice are being developed. Unfortunately, many self-management supporting interventions struggle to achieve reliable and consistent improvements at various levels (patient, provider and healthcare system level). One possible strategy to facilitate translating theory into practice, is to consider the healthcare professionals' perspective prior to the development of new interventions. An exploration of their knowledge and opinion about barriers and facilitators is necessary before employing any self-management support (SMS) intervention. Therefore, our study aims to explore care professionals' perspectives about SMS within the Flemish primary care setting. METHODS: This study used a qualitative study design to examine SMS in primary care setting. Five focus groups were conducted, grouped into three waves. Participants were healthcare professionals in Flanders representing different disciplines and settings. A maximum variation purposive sampling was used to recruit participants. For the data analysis, the framework of thematic networks by Attride-Stirling was applied. RESULTS: A total of 34 healthcare professionals participated. Three global themes related to SMS were derived from the thematic analysis: (1) Characteristics, (2) Support strategies, (3) Barriers and facilitators. SMS was characterised as a collaboration-based and person-centred approach. A variety of supporting strategies were mentioned by the focus group participants. Most strategies consisted of informing and educating patients. Complementary to individual strategies, collaborative strategies were deemed necessary to support self-management. Regarding barriers and facilitators, different patient-related factors were identified. Additionally, competencies of healthcare providers and external factors seem to hinder the implementation of SMS in practice. CONCLUSIONS: This focus group study highlights the importance of a collaborative, person-centred approach to SMS in the context of chronic diseases. Our findings point to the need for interventions that raise awareness and address barriers associated with SMS. Since generic SMS does not exist, the road to success is a growth process in which support must be adapted to the individual patient.

Characteristics of self-management support (SMS) interventions and their impact on Quality of Life (QoL) in adults with chronic diseases: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of types and characteristics of self-management support (SMS) interventions in adults with chronic disease and to assess the impact on the patient reported outcome Quality of Life (QoL). METHODS: An umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 2016 to November 2020 for reviews on SMS interventions for chronic diseases, assessing the impact on the patient reported outcome QoL. Quality assessment was based on the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic reviews and Research Syntheses tool. RESULTS: 28 reviews were included. The extensive literature review revealed a variety of SMS interventions. The most frequently cited target group for the interventions were individuals with diabetes. Interventions primarily took place in the home setting. Interventional components that were often incorporated were education, eHealth and mHealth technologies, and coaching techniques. Telephone communication was regularly reported as a type of intervention follow-up. The impact on QoL was mixed and no firm conclusions can be drawn. However, our review revealed a beneficial effect of education. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Interventions including educational components seem promising for supporting self-management and showed a beneficial effect on QoL. More research is needed to explore where, by whom and how interventions are ideally delivered.

Creating space to talk about patients' personal goals: experiences from primary care stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: To address the many challenges health systems and communities face, primary care is constantly searching for new strategies to improve quality of care. One of the strategies is to focus on patients' personal goals to direct the care process. To adopt an explicit focus on patients' personal goals, actions at different levels are required. As a first step in this process, this study aims to explore the experiences of primary care stakeholders (i.e., scholars, primary care providers, and policy makers) and develop a comprehensive understanding on the idea 'putting patients' goals first'. This will help to formulate suggestions about what these actions should include. METHOD: In this study, 41 primary care stakeholders participating in six focus groups between January 2020 and September 2020, were recruited via maximal variation purposive sampling. Data collection was done through an open-ended semi-structured interview guide. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed following a phenomenological-hermeneutical philosophy of Lindseth and Norberg. RESULTS: All participants expressed a strong fundamental belief for putting patients' personal goals first. The primary care providers shared that they created space for patients' personal goals by letting them talk about their values and stories. They reported to integrate their medical expertise with patients' personal goals in order to develop a balanced relationship. In this context, they also talked about the importance of taking into account the perspectives of patients' significant others. Primary care providers also talked about how they used patients' personal goals as a guide in interprofessional collaboration. Scholars denoted that (future) care providers need more training to acquire competencies to discuss patients' personal goals. The providers and policy makers talked about organizational limitations in terms of time restrictions and the lack of registration systems to support a workflow oriented towards patients' personal goals. CONCLUSIONS: This study can be used to support the coherence of the development of different actions and strategies to get primary care stakeholders fully on board to support the adoption of patients' personal goals in care delivery at different levels. However, models of practice and policy plans are needed to work towards a person-centered integrated system.

How do people living with chronic conditions and their informal caregivers experience primary care? A phenomenological-hermeneutical study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Gaining insight in how people living with chronic conditions experience primary healthcare within their informal network. BACKGROUND: The primary healthcare system is challenged by the increasing number of people living with chronic conditions. To strengthen chronic care management, literature and policy plans point to a person-centred approach of care (PCC). A first step to identify an appropriate strategy to implement PCC is to gain more insight into the care experiences of these people and their informal caregivers. DESIGN: A phenomenological-hermeneutical philosophy is used. The study is in line with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research Guidelines (COREQ). METHOD: In-depth, semi-structured interviews with people living with chronic conditions and informal caregiver dyads (PCDs) (n = 16; 32 individuals) were conducted. An open-ended interview guide was used to elaborate on the PCDs' experiences regarding primary care. A purposive, maximal variation sampling was applied to recruit the participants. RESULTS: Based on sixteen PCDs' reflections, ten themes were identified presenting their experiences with primary care and described quality care as listening and giving attention to what people with chronic conditions want, to what they strive for, and above all to promote their autonomy in a context wherein they are supported by a team of formal caregivers, family and friends. CONCLUSION: To meet the PCDs' needs, self-management should be addressed in an interprofessional environment in which the PCD is an important partner. The findings may facilitate a shift to encourage PCDs in their strengths by enabling them to share their personal goals and by working towards meaningful activities in team collaboration. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Three strategies-self-management support, goal-oriented care, and interprofessional collaboration-have been suggested to improve the PCDs' primary care experiences. These strategies could guide nursing practice in using more and improve high-quality nursing care.

Self-management support in flemish primary care practice: the development of a preliminary conceptual model using a qualitative approach.

BACKGROUND: Coping with a chronic disease can be really challenging. Self-management represents a promising strategy to improve daily life experiences. The role of primary healthcare professionals cannot be underestimated in supporting self-management. Due to a shortage of theory, implementation of self-management support is hindered in primary care practice. The aim of this study is to create a conceptual model for self-management support by analysing patients' care experiences towards self-management support. METHODS: An explorative-descriptive qualitative study was conducted in Flanders, Belgium. Semi-structured interviews were performed with 16 patients and their informal caregiver (dyads) using a purposive sampling strategy and processed by an inductive content analysis, according to Graneheim and Lundman. RESULTS: Interviews revealed in-depth insights into patients' care experiences. A conceptual model was developed for primary care practice, including five fundamental tasks for healthcare professionals - Supporting, Involving, Listening, Coordinating and Questioning (SILCQ) - contributing to the support of self-management of chronic patients. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative paper emphasises the use of the SILCQ-model to develop optimal roadmaps and hands-on toolkits for healthcare professionals to support self-management. The model needs to be further explored by all stakeholders to support the development of self-management interventions in primary care practice.

Recommendations for Researchers on Synchronous, Online, Nominal Group Sessions in Times of COVID-19: Fishbone Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In times of COVID-19, we are challenged to experiment with alternative platforms or software to connect people. In particular, the struggle that arose in health research was how to interact with patients and care professionals. The latter is additionally faced with an extreme workload to fight the pandemic crisis. Creative strategies have been developed to continue research among patients and care professionals to improve quality of care. This paper addresses the issue of synchronous, online, nominal group sessions, a common consensus method used for group brainstorming. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to share our experiences with performing online, nominal group sessions using the video conference software Microsoft Teams. In addition, we aimed to create a practical guide with recommendations for researchers. METHODS: We critically analyzed the procedures for the online nominal group technique, according to the Fishbone methodology. RESULTS: Performing synchronous, online, nominal group sessions is challenging but offers opportunities. Although interaction with and among the attendees complicates the process, the major advantage of online sessions is their accessibility and comfort because of reduced barriers to participation (eg, lower time investment). The role of the moderators is of major importance, and good preparation beforehand is required. Recommendations for future online, nominal research were formulated. CONCLUSIONS: Online, nominal group sessions seem to be a promising alternative for the real-life commonly used technique. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, the benefits must be highlighted. More expertise is needed to further refine the practical guide for using digital software in research and to achieve optimal performance.

Evaluation of Information in Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) on the Use of a Medicine in Patients With Hepatic Impairment.

Background: In 2005, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released guidance on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with hepatic impairment. This guidance describes the design of these studies and what information should be presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aim to evaluate the availability and clinical applicability of information on medicine use in patients with hepatic impairment in SmPCs and registrational dossiers of recently approved medicines. Methods: We reviewed SmPC information on use in patients with hepatic impairment of 51 new medicines authorized between 2015 and 2017. Per medicine, we assessed the availability of nine information items derived from the EMA guidance, i.e. type of hepatic disease studied; stratification by severity of hepatic impairment; influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics; safety advice in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments; and dosing recommendation in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments. If unavailable, the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and study report were consulted consecutively. Of available items, clinical applicability was assessed by labeling information as "clear" or "ambiguous". Results: Of 51 medicines, 15 had no pharmacokinetic study in patients with hepatic impairment described in their SmPC. The other 36 SmPCs contained on average seven of the nine information items (range 4-9). One SmPC contained all 9 items, and after consulting, the study reports, 11 SmPCs were complete. The item "type of hepatic disease studied" was available in one SmPC, though it could be retrieved in 21 study reports. Regarding clinical applicability, there was no medicine with all information items available and clearly formulated in the SmPC. A total of 12 medicines (33%) contained only clearly formulated information, while 24 (67%) contained at least one ambiguously formulated information item (range 0-4). Items often ambiguously formulated were: "definition of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment" (15 ambiguous SmPCs) and "safety advice in severe hepatic impairment" (17 ambiguous SmPCs). Conclusion: While SmPCs contain a large part of information requested by the EMA, clinical applicability seems low, as it is often unclear to which specific type of hepatic disease patient the advice applies. This can negatively influence the practical use by healthcare professionals.