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.

Use of Motivational Interviewing in Older Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions and Their Informal Caregivers: A Scoping Review

The use of motivational interviewing is relatively new in multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). A scoping review was conducted according to JBI methodology to identify, map and synthesize existing evidence on the use of motivational interviewing to support self-care behavior changes in older patients with MCCs and to support their informal caregivers in promoting patient self-care changes. Seven databases were searched, from database inception to July 2022, for studies that used motivational interviewing in interventions for older patients with MCCs and their informal caregivers. We identified 12 studies, reported in 15 articles, using qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method designs, conducted between 2012 and 2022, describing the use of motivational interviewing for patients with MCCs. We could not locate any study regarding its application for informal caregivers. The scoping review showed that the use of motivational interviewing is still limited in MCCs. It was used mainly to improve patient medication adherence. The studies provided scant information about how the method was applied. Future studies should provide more information about the application of motivational interviewing and should address self-care behavior changes relevant to patients and healthcare providers. Informal caregivers should also be targeted in motivational interviewing interventions, as they are essential for the care of older patients with MCCs.

Measuring Older Peoples' Experiences of Person-Centred Coordinated Care: Experience and Methodological Reflections from Applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure in SUSTAIN

Introduction

While several evaluation studies on (cost-)effectiveness of integrated care have been conducted in recent years, more insight is deemed necessary into integrated care from the perspective of service users. In the context of a European project on integrated care for older people living at home (SUSTAIN), this paper shares the experience and methodological reflections from applying a Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) on person-centred coordinated care -the P3CEQ- among this population.

Methods

A combination of quantitative and qualitative data and analysis methods was used to assess the usability and the quality of applying a PREM among older people presenting complex care needs, using the P3CEQ delivery in SUSTAIN as a case study. 228 service users completed the P3CEQ and nine SUSTAIN researchers participated in a consultation about their experience administering the questionnaire. P3CEQ scores were analysed quantitatively using principal component analysis and multilevel linear regression. P3CEQ open responses and researcher notes collected when administering the questionnaire were thematically analysed.

Results

Service user inclusion was high and most P3CEQ items had low non-response rates. Quantitative analysis and researcher experience indicate the relevance of face-to-face administration for obtaining such an amount of data in this population group. The presence of a carer increased inclusion of more vulnerable respondents, such as the cognitively impaired, but posed a challenge in data interpretation. Although several P3CEQ items were generally understood as intended by questionnaire developers, the analysis of open responses highlights how questions can lead to diverging and sometimes narrow interpretations by respondents. Cognitive impairment and a higher educational attainment were associated with lower levels of perceived person-centredness of care.

Conclusion

This study shows essential preconditions to meaningfully collect and analyse PREM data on older peoples' experiences with integrated care: face-to-face administration away from care providers, collection of reasons for non-response and open comments providing nuances to answers, and multilevel modelling taking into account diversity in the target population. Several areas of improvement for future PREM use in this population have been identified: use of administration and coding guides, inclusion of clear and easy to understand definitions and examples illustrating what questions do and do not mean, measures of the expectations of person-centred coordinated care, and procedures ensuring sound ethical research. These methodological learnings can enhance future evaluation of integrated care from a service user perspective.

Measuring the benefits of the integration of health and social care: qualitative interviews with professional stakeholders and patient representatives

BACKGROUND

Integrated care has the potential to ease the increasing pressures faced by health and social care systems, however, challenges around measuring the benefits for providers, patients, and service users remain. This paper explores stakeholders' views on the benefits of integrated care and approaches to measuring the integration of health and social care.

METHODS

Twenty-five semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with professional stakeholders (n = 19) and patient representatives (n = 6). Interviews focused on the benefits of integrated care and how it should be evaluated. Data was analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes emerged from the data: (1) integrated care and its benefits, with stakeholders defining it primarily from the patient's perspective; (2) potential measures for assessing the benefits of integration in terms of system effects, patient experiences, and patient outcomes; and (3) broader considerations around the assessment of integrated care, including the use of qualitative methods.

CONCLUSIONS

There was consensus among stakeholders that patient experiences and outcomes are the best measures of integration, and that the main measures currently used to assess integration do not directly assess patient benefits. Validated health status measures are readily available, however, a substantial shift in practices is required before their use becomes commonplace.

Organizing integrated health-care services to meet older people's needs

In most countries, a fundamental shift in the focus of clinical care for older people is needed. Instead of trying to manage numerous diseases and symptoms in a disjointed fashion, the emphasis should be on interventions that optimize older people’s physical and mental capacities over their life course and that enable them to do the things they value. This, in turn, requires a change in the way services are organized: there should be more integration within the health system and between health and social services. Existing organizational structures do not have to merge; rather, a wide array of service providers must work together in a more coordinated fashion. The evidence suggests that integrated health and social care for older people contributes to better health outcomes at a cost equivalent to usual care, thereby giving a better return on investment than more familiar ways of working. Moreover, older people can participate in, and contribute to, society for longer. Integration at the level of clinical care is especially important: older people should undergo comprehensive assessments with the goal of optimizing functional ability and care plans should be shared among all providers. At the health system level, integrated care requires: (i) supportive policy, plans and regulatory frameworks; (ii) workforce development; (iii) investment in information and communication technologies; and (iv) the use of pooled budgets, bundled payments and contractual incentives. However, action can be taken at all levels of health care from front-line providers through to senior leaders – everyone has a role to play.