Nanotechnologies. Plain language explanation of selected terms from the ISO/IEC 80004 series

IntroductionIn response to the burden of chronic disease among older adults, different chronic disease self-management tools have been created to optimise disease management. However, these seldom consider all aspects of disease management are not usually developed specifically for seniors or created for sustained use and are primarily focused on a single disease. We created an eHealth self-management application called ‘KeepWell’ that supports seniors with complex care needs in their homes. It incorporates the care for two or more chronic conditions from among the most prevalent high-burden chronic diseases.Methods and analysisWe will evaluate the effectiveness, cost and uptake of KeepWell in a 6-month, pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness–implementation randomised controlled trial. Older adults age ≥65 years with one or more chronic conditions who are English speaking are able to consent and have access to a computer or tablet device, internet and an email address will be eligible. All consenting participants will be randomly assigned to KeepWell or control. The allocation sequence will be determined using a random number generator.Primary outcome is perceived self-efficacy at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, health background/status, lifestyle (nutrition, physical activity, caffeine, alcohol, smoking and bladder health), social engagement and connections, eHealth literacy; all collected via a Health Risk Questionnaire embedded within KeepWell (intervention) or a survey platform (control). Implementation outcomes will include reach, effectiveness, adoption, fidelity, implementation cost and sustainability.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been received from the North York General Hospital Research and Ethics Board. The study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ontario Ministry of Health. We will work with our team to develop a dissemination strategy which will include publications, presentations, plain language summaries and an end-of-grant meeting.Trial registration numberNCT04437238.

Download Full-text

Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e044472

Author(s):

Saar Hommes ◽

Ruben Vromans ◽

Felix Clouth ◽

Xander Verbeek ◽

Ignace de Hingh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Decision Making ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Specific Treatment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Plain Language ◽

Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Plain Language Summary: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1177/0194599821996313 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 164 (4) ◽

pp. 704-711

Author(s):

Samantha Anne ◽

Sandra A. Finestone ◽

Allison Paisley ◽

Taskin M. Monjur

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Pain Management ◽

Health Care Providers ◽

Clinical Practice Guideline ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Care Providers ◽

Plain Language ◽

Opioid Prescribing

This plain language summary explains pain management and careful use of opioids after common otolaryngology operations. The summary applies to patients of any age who need treatment for pain within 30 days after having a common otolaryngologic operation (having to do with the ear, nose, or throat). It is based on the 2021 “Clinical Practice Guideline: Opioid Prescribing for Analgesia After Common Otolaryngology Operations.” This guideline uses available research to best advise health care providers, and it includes recommendations that are explained in this summary. Recommendations may not apply to every patient but can be used to facilitate shared decision making between patients and their health care providers.

Download Full-text

Provider self-efficacy in delivering evidence-based psychosocial interventions: A scoping review

Implementation Research and Practice ◽

10.1177/2633489520988258 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2 ◽

pp. 263348952098825

Author(s):

Cheri J Shapiro ◽

Kathleen Watson MacDonell ◽

Mariah Moran

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Implementation Research ◽

Self Efficacy ◽

Psychosocial Interventions ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Health Providers ◽

Plain Language ◽

Mental Health Interventions

Background: Among the many variables that affect implementation of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings, self-efficacy is one of the most important factors at the provider level of the social ecology. Yet, research on the construct of provider self-efficacy remains limited. Objectives: This scoping review was conducted to enhance understanding of the construct of provider self-efficacy and to examine how the construct is defined and measured in the context of implementation of evidence-based mental health interventions. Design: Online databases were used to identify 190 papers published from 1999 to June of 2018 that included search terms for providers, evidence-based, and self-efficacy. To be eligible for the scoping review, papers needed to focus on the self-efficacy of mental health providers to deliver evidence-based psychosocial interventions. A total of 15 publications were included in the review. Results: The construct of provider self-efficacy is not clearly defined but is typically described as confidence to deliver a specific intervention or practice. A range of measures are used to assess provider self-efficacy across both provider and intervention types. Conclusions: Standardized definition and measurement of provider self-efficacy is needed to advance practice and implementation research. Plain language abstract: Provider self-efficacy is known to influence implementation of evidence-based mental health interventions. However, the ways in which provider self-efficacy is defined and measured in implementation research literature is not well understood; furthermore, it is not clear what types of providers and interventions are represented in this literature. This scoping review adds to current research by revealing that there is no agreed upon definition or measure of provider self-efficacy in the context of implementation of evidence-based interventions, and that the research includes multiple types of providers (e.g., social workers, counselors, psychologists) and interventions. Self-efficacy appears to change as a function of training and support. To further research in this area, a common definition and agreed upon measures of this construct are needed.

Download Full-text