Diabetes-related research priorities of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study in Germany

To investigate (i) the importance and priorities of research objectives for people with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM); (ii) subgroups with specific research priorities; (iii) associated factors (e.g., sociodemographic characteristics) of the subgroups. The cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2018 using data from 869 respondents (29.0% response, 31.2% female, mean age 61.3 years, 62.7% T2DM) from a German statutory health insurance population. Diabetes-related research priorities were assessed with a questionnaire. Subgroups and associated factors were identified using latent class analysis. Three subgroups were found in T1DM: (1) high priority for the research topic 'healing diabetes' and moderate priority for the research topic 'prevention of long-term complications', (2) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (moderate), (3) priorities for healing diabetes (high) and simplifying handling (high). Three subgroups were found in T2DM: (1) priorities for simplifying handling (moderate), diabetes prevention (moderate) and prevention of long-term complications (moderate), (2) priorities for stress reduction (high) and diabetes prevention (moderate), (3) priorities for simplifying handling (high) and stress reduction (high). Classes differed in age and HbA_1c. Knowledge about research priorities enables researchers to align their work with the needs of people with diabetes.

Knowledge of HbA1c and LDL-C treatment goals, subjective level of disease-related information and information needs in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS

Risk factor control of diabetes mellitus (DM) and especially dyslipidemia remains unsatisfactory in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to analyze the knowledge of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment goals, subjective level of information, and information needs in very high-risk patients with ASCVD.

METHODS

ASCVD patients (n = 210; 75 ± 9 years; 71.4% male; 89.5% coronary disease) with DM (96.7% type 2) completed a questionnaire assessing knowledge of HbA1c and LDL-C treatment goals and subjective level of information and information needs on disease-related topics of DM and ASCVD. Serum LDL-C and HbA1c were measured.

RESULTS

HbA1c goal (<7.0% in 60.6%) was attained more frequently than LDL-C goal (<70 mg/dl in 39.9%; p < .01). Significantly more participants named the correct goal for HbA1c compared to LDL-C (52.9% vs. 2.4%; p < .01). Subjective levels of information were higher and information needs were lower for DM than for ASCVD (p < .01 for all topics). No associations of knowledge of treatment goals and level of information with the attainment of treatment goals for HbA1c and LDL-C were found. However, in multivariate regression, higher levels of education were associated with knowledge of treatment goals (HbA1c: odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.72, p = .04; LDL-C: OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.07-5.03; p = .03).

CONCLUSION

In very high-risk patients with ASCVD, a deficit of knowledge of treatment goals to control dyslipidemia exists when compared to DM, patients felt significantly better informed for topics of DM than for ASCVD and display higher information needs for topics of ASCVD.

Indicators for implementation outcome monitoring of reporting and learning systems in hospitals: an underestimated need for patient safety

Objective

We aimed to investigate the perception of the implementation success of reporting and learning systems in German hospitals, the perceived relevance of the implementation outcomes and whether and how these implementation outcomes are monitored. An reporting and learning system is a tool used worldwide for patient safety that identifies and analyses critical events, errors, risks and near misses in healthcare.

Methods

A pretested exploratory cross-sectional online survey was conducted with reporting and learning system experts from 51 acute care hospitals. For communicative validation, the results were discussed in person in an expert panel discussion (N=23).

Results

Fifty-three per cent (n=27) of the participants (N=51) of the online survey perceived that their reporting and learning system was being comprehensively and successfully implemented. However, no service or patient outcomes were reported to ultimately capture the concept of implementation success. Most of the participants reported a (high) relevance of the implementation outcomes’ acceptability and sustainability. In total, 44 measures were provided to monitor implementation outcomes. However, most of the quantitative measures were based on the (relative) number of entered reports. Qualitative measures were reported in relation to the ‘quality of the report’. In general, the measures were poorly specified.

Conclusion

There is an underestimated need to develop validated ‘implementation patient safety indicator(s) (sets)’ to monitor implementation outcomes of reporting and learning systems. We also identified a potential need to facilitate awareness of the concept of implementation success and its relevance for patient safety. Drafts of indicators that could be used as a starting point for the further development of ‘implementation patient safety indicators’ were provided.

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes after polytrauma - instruments and methods: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.

DESIGN

Systematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18-75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017060825.

Emotional Safety in the Context of Dementia: A Multiperspective Qualitative Study

Background:

Current research acknowledges the relevance of the emotional safety of people living with dementia. However, available evidence regarding this topic is limited. A comprehensive view of this topic that equally considers the perspectives of people living in an early stage of dementia, relatives, and public stakeholders is lacking.

Objective:

This study aimed to obtain a multiperspective view of emotional safety in the context of dementia in the living environment.

Methods:

A descriptive qualitative study was conducted based on data collected through semi-structured guided interviews (n = 14), focus groups (n = 3), guided feedback, and participatory approaches. People living in an early stage of dementia (N = 6), relatives of people living with dementia (N = 11), and public stakeholders (N = 15) were included.

Results:

Considering “social togetherness”, “personal condition”, “health”, “physical environment”, and “society” in the light of “living and learning in relations” are preconditions for understanding emotional safety in the context of dementia. “Living and learning in relations” refers to the interaction of people in the context of dementia and relations to the topic of dementia. The focus lies on the (collective) learning. The individuality of each person and his or her situation is central, related to dementia-related, psychosocial, biographical, physical, and economic factors.

Conclusion:

Our study highlights the relevance of research on emotional safety in the context of dementia. Approaches to improving the emotional safety of people living in an early stage of dementia should consider the complex situations of each target group in relation to each other at the micro, meso, and macro levels.