Conectar
by Tyler Marshall, Karin Olson, Adam Abba-Aji, Xin-Min Li, Richard Lewanczuk, Sunita Vohra
BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients make health-related decisions collaboratively, guided by the best available evidence. Previous research suggests that emerging adults (aged 18–29) with mental health concerns might prefer SDM over traditional approaches; however, it remains unclear whether prevalent symptoms of anxiety, depression, or health-related quality of life (HRQL) are associated with the level of SDM that occurs during a clinical encounter.
ObjectiveThis study explored whether prevalent symptoms of anxiety, depression or HRQL among emerging adults were associated with the perceived level of SDM involvement during a single clinic visit at a primary care or community addiction and mental health (AMH) setting.
MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted using a subset of data (emerging adults and their HCPs) obtained from an overarching study on SDM in adults (18–64 years) in Alberta, Canada. Sociodemographic data were collected and reported descriptively. SDM was the primary outcome variable and was measured dyadically (i.e., the mean score between HCPs and patients) using the Alberta Shared Decision-Making Instrument (ASK-MI). Symptoms of patient anxiety/depression and HRQL were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the EQ-5D-5L. Pearson R correlation matrices were conducted to explore relationships between SDM, anxiety/depression, HRQL, and demographic variables.
ResultsForty-two emerging adult patients and 31 HCP dyads were recruited from six community AMH settings and eight primary care settings. The mean SDM dyad rating was 8.69 (SD, ± 2.01), indicating an “excellent” level of SDM. Symptoms of anxiety, depression, and HRQL were not significantly correlated with SDM dyad ratings during the clinic visit. Post hoc analyses showed that patient age was inversely related to SDM dyad ratings; R = −0.34, p = 0.03.
DiscussionIn this study, emerging adults reported high levels of perceived engagement in SDM, regardless of their HRQL or symptoms of anxiety and depression. However, several limitations, such as the risk of performance bias, should be considered when interpreting these findings. To strengthen the evidence base, future research should aim to address these limitations.
Our aim is to develop a Framework of Measurement for people living with Long COVID and their caregivers for use in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Specifically, we will characterise evidence pertaining to outcome measurement and identify implementation considerations for use of outcome measures among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers.
We will conduct a scoping study involving: (1) an evidence review and (2) a two-phased consultation, using methodological steps outlined by the Arksey and O’Malley Framework and Joanna Briggs Institute. We will answer the following question: What is known about outcome measures used to describe, evaluate or predict health outcomes among adults and children living with Long COVID and their caregivers? Evidence review: we will review peer review published and grey literature to identify existing outcome measures and their reported measurement properties with people living with Long COVID and their caregivers. We will search databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus for articles published since 2020. Two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full text to select articles that discuss or use outcome measures for Long COVID health outcomes, pertain to adults or children living with Long COVID and/or their caregivers and are based in research or clinical settings. We will extract data including article characteristics, terminology and definition of Long COVID, health outcomes assessed, characteristics of outcome measures, measurement properties and implementation considerations. We will collate and summarise data to establish a preliminary Framework of Measurement. Consultation phase 1: we will conduct an environmental scan involving a cross-sectional web-based questionnaire among individuals with experience using or completing outcome measures for Long COVID, to identify outcome measures not found in the evidence review and explore implementation considerations for outcome measurement in the context of Long COVID. Consultation phase 2: we will conduct focus groups to review the preliminary Framework of Measurement and to highlight implementation considerations for outcome measurement in Long COVID. We will analyse questionnaire and focus group data using descriptive and content analytical approaches. We will refine the Framework of Measurement based on the focus group consultation using community-engaged approaches with the research team.
Protocol approved by the University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (protocol #46503) for the consultation phases of the study. Outcomes will include a Framework of Measurement, to enhance measurement of health outcomes in Long COVID research and clinical practice. Knowledge translation will also occur in the form of publications and presentations.
Randomised controlled trials have aimed to assess the effectiveness of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with curative intent versus surgical resection for individuals diagnosed with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) but have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. Non-randomised studies for early-stage NSCLC have reported mixed outcomes following curative SABR versus surgical resection, but did not fully address confounding by indication. The Surgery Or RadioTherapy for early-stage cancer study (SORT) will assess the comparative effectiveness of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for NSCLC with a target trial emulation approach, as this can reduce biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions.
The SORT study will use the National Cancer Registry for individuals diagnosed with early-stage NSCLC in England during 2015–2020 (inclusive) who received SABR with curative intent or surgical resection. These data will be linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, National Radiotherapy Data Set and the Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy dataset to obtain information on clinical and sociodemographic characteristics and the treatment received. This target trial emulation will define study population eligibility criteria and regimens for SABR with curative intent and surgical resection. We will reduce the risk of residual confounding with instrumental variable analyses that will exploit geographical variation across the National Health Service in England in the use of SABR with curative intent versus surgical resection for early-stage NSCLC. The primary outcome will be 3-year all-cause mortality after treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes will include 3-month, 6-month, 12-month and 24-month all-cause and lung-cancer mortality, time to death, numbers of hospitalisations, incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness.
Ethical approval was obtained from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (reference number 29 717–1). Results will be disseminated to clinicians, patients, policy-makers and researchers.
FreshRSS 