Search

Purpose: Evidence supporting multimorbidity-adapted interventions is scarce, mostly due to a lack of adapted outcome measures. Measurement constructs for a novel patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) were defined in previous studies using a literature review, a qualitative description from stakeholders, and an item pool identification process. The aim of this study was to attain consensus on the content of this novel PROM., Methods: A three-round electronic modified Delphi technique was conducted using an academic and clinical expert panel. Using a Likert scale, the panel rated the relevance, improvability, and self-ratability of each construct and item of the preliminary version of the PROM. The main outcome was consensus attainment, defined as strong (≥ 70%), moderate (50-69%) or low agreement (< 50%). Constructs and items with strong consensus were kept, moderate were sent to the next round and low agreement were rejected., Results: From the 61 experts contacted, 39 participated in the first round of the Delphi, with a 12.8% attrition at the second round (n = 34) and 38.2% at the third round (n = 21). The panel included mostly female academic experts from nursing and medicine backgrounds. The preliminary PROM included 19 constructs and 70 items; from these, 16 constructs and 50 items attained consensus. The consensus attainment process excluded three constructs and their items: awareness, weight control and social integration., Conclusion: Consensus was reached for a patient-reported outcome measure adapted for people with multimorbidity including 50 relevant, improvable and self-ratable items categorized under 16 constructs. As more interventions tailored to multimorbidity are implemented, there is an increasing need for a valid measure of the effectiveness of these interventions., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Multimorbidity is a complex health situation that requires interventions tailored to patient needs; the outcomes of such interventions are difficult to evaluate. The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes of patient-centred interventions for people with multimorbidity from the patients' and healthcare providers' perspectives., Methods: This study followed a qualitative descriptive design. Nine patients with multimorbidity and 18 healthcare professionals (nurses, general practitioners, nutritionists, and physical and respiratory therapists), participating in a multimorbidity-adapted intervention in primary care were recruited. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews with 12 open-ended questions. Triangulation of disciplines among interviewers, research team debriefing, data saturation assessment and iterative data collection and analysis ensured a rigorous research process., Results: Outcome constructs described by participants covered a wide range of themes and were grouped into seven outcome domains: Health Management, Physical Health, Functional Status, Psychosocial Health, Health-related Behaviours, General Health and Health Services. The description of constructs by stakeholders provides valuable insight on how outcomes are experienced and worded by patients., Conclusion: Participants described a wide range of outcome constructs, which were relevant to and observable by patients and were in line with the clinical reality. The description provides a portrait of multimorbidity-adapted intervention outcomes that are significant for the selection and development of clinical research outcome measures.

Background: Multimorbidity challenges the health-care system and requires innovative approaches. In 2015, a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention was implemented in primary care with the aim of supporting self-management for patients with multimorbidity., Objective: To explore the perceptions and experiences of health-care professionals, patients and their caregivers with a 4-month patient-centred interdisciplinary pragmatic intervention in primary care., Design: A descriptive, qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted., Setting and Participants: A purposive sample of 30 participants was recruited from seven family medicine groups including patients, caregivers and health-care professionals (HCPs). Interviews were analysed using Thorne's interpretive description approach., Results: Findings were grouped into the benefits and challenges of participating in the intervention. The programme allowed patients to adopt realistic and adapted objectives; to customize interventions to the patient's reality; and to help patients gain confidence, improve their knowledge, skills and motivation to manage their condition. Interprofessional collaboration eased the exchange of information via team meetings and electronic medical records. Challenges were related to collaboration, communication, coordination of work and integration of newly relocated HCPs mainly due to part-time assignments and staff turnover. HCPs part-time schedules limited their availability and hindered patients' follow-up., Discussion and Conclusion: This intervention was useful and rewarding from the HCPs, patients and caregivers' perspective. However, to ensure the success of this complex interdisciplinary intervention, implementers and managers should anticipate organizational barriers such as availability and time management of relocated HCPs., (© 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Although chronic disease management interventions for persons with multimorbidity are offered in primary healthcare, a strong evidence base supporting such interventions is still lacking. Part of this problem is due to the heterogeneity in the use of outcome measures in multimorbidity intervention research., Objectives: This review aims to describe and map outcome measurement in chronic disease management intervention research for people with multimorbidity., Design: A scoping review of multiple chronic disease management intervention studies published between January 1996 and July 2017., Data Sources: Search of the academic literature was undertaken in the MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO electronic databases., Results: Twenty-two studies were identified, 56 outcomes were reported, grouped into 18 categories and six emergent domains of outcomes: General health, Psychosocial, Disease management, Health-related behaviours, Functional and Health services. Quality of life, health-related behaviors and self-efficacy were the most reported outcome categories, while patient satisfaction, communication with providers and adverse outcomes were rarely reported., Conclusions: The mapping and description brought to light the large heterogeneity of outcome categories and measures. The organization proposed in this paper could contribute to improved outcome selection for research, care and policy and lead to the creation of adapted patient-related outcome measures., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)