Relieving distressed caregivers (ReDiCare study): study protocol of a randomized pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Providing care for someone with a disease or chronic condition can have a negative psychological, physical, social, and economic impact upon informal caregivers. Despite the socio-economic relevance and more than three decades of caregiver intervention research only very few translational efforts of successful interventions are reported. Still less of these interventions have been implemented into routine services. The aim of the ReDiCare study (German acronym BerTA) is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped counselling approach for burdened caregivers delivered by care counsellors of two long-term care insurances and registered psychotherapists. METHODS/ DESIGN: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial with 572 caregivers of older adults (≥ 60 years) receiving benefits of one of the two participating long-term care insurances. Participants are assigned (t0) to either the ReDiCare intervention or a control group receiving routine care and counselling. Data are collected at baseline (-t1), 3-month (t1), 9-month (t2) and 15-month (t3). The 9-month post-intervention assessment (t2) is the primary endpoint to evaluate the results on the primary and secondary outcomes, measured by self-reported questionnaires. Depressive symptoms measured with the CES-D are the primary outcome. The main secondary outcomes are physical complaints, utilization of psychosocial resources, caregiver self-efficacy and burden, positive aspects of caregiving and perceived care quality. A process evaluation, including audio tapes, self-report questionnaires and documentation will be conducted to examine internal and external validity of the intervention. Data on direct and indirect costs are collected for the (health) economic evaluation, using a health care perspective and a societal perspective. DISCUSSION: While comparable previous caregiver interventions have been developed and evaluated for specific caregiver groups (e.g. dementia caregivers, stroke caregivers), the ReDiCare study will indicate whether a stepped approach will be effective also in a broader group of caregivers. The intervention is one of the very few translational studies in caregiver intervention research and will provide valuable insights into relevant factors for training, intervention protocol adherence, effectiveness, and costs for future implementation steps. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register), DRKS00014593 ( www.drks.de,  registered 14 May 2018) and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, DRKS00014593  ( https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ).

Use and importance of different information sources among patients with rare diseases and their relatives over time: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Finding reliable information on one of more than 7000 rare diseases is a major challenge for those affected. Since rare diseases are defined only by the prevalence criterion, a multitude of heterogeneous diseases are included. Common to all, however, are difficulties regarding information access. Even though various quantitative studies have analyzed the use of different information sources for specific rare diseases, little is known about the use of information sources for different rare diseases, how users rate these information sources based on their experiences, and how the use and importance of these information sources change over time. METHODS: Fifty-five patients with a variety of rare diseases and 13 close relatives participated in qualitative interviews. For these interviews, a semi-structured guideline was developed, piloted, and revised. Data analysis involved a qualitative content analysis developed by Philipp Mayring. RESULTS: The participants considered internet as the most important and widespread information source, especially for early information. Although patients have difficulty dealing with information obtained online, they consider online searching a quick and practical option to gather information. During the course of the disease, personal contact partners, especially self-help associations and specialized doctors, become more important. This is also because information provided online is sometimes insufficiently detailed to answer their information needs, which can be complemented by information from doctors and self-help. CONCLUSIONS: People rarely use just one type of source, but rather refer to different sources and informants. The source used depends on the type of information sought as well as other person-related factors such as preexisting knowledge and the disease stage. To improve people's information searching and connect them with medical specialists in rare diseases, a central information portal on rare diseases might be a suitable access point to provide free and quality assured information for patients, caregivers, and physicians. This would allow not only patients but also doctors to find quality assured information on symptoms and therapies as well as patient associations and specialized doctors.

Patient-reported data informing early benefit assessment of rare diseases in Germany: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since the implementation of the Regulation on Patient Integration (2003), the Act on the Reorganization of the Pharmaceutical Market (2011), and the Patient Rights Law (2013), the inclusion of patient perspectives has been further anchored in the German early benefit assessment process. During the assessment of rare disease interventions, patient perspectives are particularly important, as clinical studies are often designed acknowledging small samples and patients suffering from severe symptoms and the chronic course of the disease. Therefore, our research question is whether patient perspectives are considered as part of early benefit assessments for rare diseases. We also strive to examine how patient perspectives are methodologically elicited and presented. METHODS: Our empirical evidence comes from a systematic review of orphan drug value dossiers submitted to the German Federal Joint Committee as well as the corresponding evaluations conducted between January 1, 2011 and March 1, 2019 (n = 81). Data on patient perspective integration were extracted using the following patient-reported outcome subcategories: clinical patient-reported outcomes, health-related quality of life, patient preferences, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrates the specific relevance of patient-reported outcomes raised as part of the medical data set and presented during the early benefit assessment process. They are predominantly presented in the form of health-related quality of life data (n = 75%) and clinical outcomes (n = 49%). Preferences (n = 2%) and satisfaction (n = 1%) are still rarely presented, although the heated methodological discussion in Germany would suggest otherwise. While various methodologies for the integration of clinical outcomes and quality of life data were found, presenting data on satisfaction and preferences still lacks methodological rigor. The German Federal Joint Committee has not yet integrated these data in their decision text. Clinical outcomes and quality of life have been included in 46% and 73% of the cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The underlying analysis demonstrates that there is still a relative high potential for the regular and systematic inclusion of patient perspectives within the early benefit assessment process for rare diseases. In particular, patient preferences and patient satisfaction are still rarely included suggesting the need for a clear-cut methodological foundation and incentives.

Integrating patient perspectives in medical decision-making: a qualitative interview study examining potentials within the rare disease information exchange process in practice.

BACKGROUND: Many European countries have recently implemented national rare disease plans. Although the network is strengthening, especially on the macro and meso levels, patients still go a long way through healthcare systems, with many health professionals involved and scarce evidence to gather. Specifically, patient involvement in the form of shared decision-making can offer further potential to increase healthcare systems' efficiency on a micro level. Therefore, we examine the implementation of the shared decision-making concept thus far, and explore whether efficiency potentials exist-which are particularly relevant within the rare disease field-and how they can be triggered. METHODS: Our empirical evidence comes from 101 interviews conducted from March to September 2014 in Germany; 55 patients, 13 family members, and 33 health professionals participated in a qualitative interview study. Transcripts were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The interviews indicate that the decision-making process is increasingly relevant in practice. In comparison, however, the shared decision-making agreement itself was rarely reported. A majority of interactions are dominated by individual, informed decision-making, followed by paternalistic approaches. The patient-physician relationship was characterized by a distorted trust-building process, which is affected by not only dependencies due to the diseases' severity and chronic course, but an often-reported stigmatization of patients as stimulants. Moreover, participation was high due to a pronounced engagement of those affected, diminishing as patients' strength vanish during their odyssey through health care systems. The particular roles of "expert patients" or "lay experts" in the rare disease field were revealed, with further potential in integrating the gathered information. CONCLUSIONS: The study reveals the named efficiency potentials, which are unique for rare diseases and make the further integration of shared decision-making very attractive, facilitating diagnostics and disease management. It is noteworthy that integrating shared decision-making in the rare disease field does not only require strengthening the position of patients but also that of physicians. Efforts can be made to further integrate the concept within political frameworks to trigger the identified potential and assess the health-economic impact.

Metadata Correction: Conceptualization and Implementation of the Central Information Portal on Rare Diseases: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/resprot.7425.].

Conceptualization and Implementation of the Central Information Portal on Rare Diseases: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, public and political interest has focused on people living with rare diseases and their health concerns. Due to the large number of different types of rare diseases and the sizable number of patients, taking action to improve the life of those affected is gaining importance. In 2013, the federal government of Germany adopted a national action plan for rare diseases, including the call to establish a central information portal on rare diseases (Zentrales Informationsportal über seltene Erkrankungen, ZIPSE). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study, therefore, was to conduct scientific research on how such a portal must be designed to meet the needs of patients, their families, and medical professionals, and to provide high-quality information for information seekers. METHODS: We chose a 3-step procedure to develop a needs-based prototype of a central information portal. In the first step, we determined the information needs of patients with rare diseases, their relatives, and health care professionals by means of qualitative interviews and their content-analytical evaluation. On the basis of this, we developed the basic structure of the portal. In the second step, we identified quality criteria for websites on rare diseases to ensure that the information linked with ZIPSE meets the quality demands. Therefore, we gathered existing criteria catalogs and discussed them in an expert workshop. In the third step, we implemented and tested the developed prototypical information portal. RESULTS: A portal page was configured and made accessible on the Web. The structure of ZIPSE was based on the findings from 108 qualitative interviews with patients, their relatives, and health care professionals, through which numerous information needs were identified. We placed particularly important areas of information, such as symptoms, therapy, research, and advisory services, on the start page. Moreover, we defined 13 quality criteria, referring to factors such as author information, creation date, and privacy, enabling links with high-quality information. Moreover, 19 users tested all the developed routines based on usability and comprehensibility. Subsequently, we improved the visual presentation of search results and other important search functions. CONCLUSIONS: The implemented information portal, ZIPSE, provides high-quality information on rare diseases from a central point of access. By integrating the targeted groups as well as different experts on medical information during the construction, the website can assure an improved search for information for users. ZIPSE can also serve as a model for other Web-based information systems in the field of rare diseases. REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/7425.

Telephone health services in the field of rare diseases: a qualitative interview study examining the needs of patients, relatives, and health care professionals in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Rare diseases are, by definition, very serious and chronic diseases with a high negative impact on quality of life. Approximately 350 million people worldwide live with rare diseases. The resulting high disease burden triggers health information search, but helpful, high-quality, and up-to-date information is often hard to find. Therefore, the improvement of health information provision has been integrated in many national plans for rare diseases, discussing the telephone as one access option. In this context, this study examines the need for a telephone service offering information for people affected by rare diseases, their relatives, and physicians. METHODS: In total, 107 individuals participated in a qualitative interview study conducted in Germany. Sixty-eight individuals suffering from a rare disease or related to somebody with rare diseases and 39 health care professionals took part. Individual interviews were conducted using a standardized semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews were analysed using the qualitative content analysis, triangulating patients, relatives, and health care professionals. The fulfilment of qualitative data processing standards has been controlled for. RESULTS: Out of 68 patients and relatives and 39 physicians, 52 and 18, respectively, advocated for the establishment of a rare diseases telephone service. Interviewees expected a helpline to include expert staffing, personal contact, good availability, low technical barriers, medical and psychosocial topics of counselling, guidance in reducing information chaos, and referrals. Health care professionals highlighted the importance of medical topics of counselling-in particular, differential diagnostics-and referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, the need for a national rare diseases helpline was confirmed in this study. Due to limited financial resources, existing offers should be adapted in a stepwise procedure in accordance with the identified attributes.

Shaping an Effective Health Information Website on Rare Diseases Using a Group Decision-Making Tool: Inclusion of the Perspectives of Patients, Their Family Members, and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Despite diverging definitions on rare conditions, people suffering from rare diseases share similar difficulties. A lack of experience by health professionals, a long wait from first symptoms to diagnosis, scarce medical and scientific knowledge, and unsatisfactory treatment options all trigger the search for health information by patients, family members, and physicians. Examining and systematically integrating stakeholder needs can help design information platforms that effectively support this search. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to innovate on the group decision-making process involving patients, family members, and physicians for the establishment of a national rare disease Internet platform. We determined differences in the relevance of health information-especially examining quantifiable preference weights-between these subgroups and elucidated the structure and distribution of these differences in people suffering from rare diseases, their family members, and physicians, thus providing information crucial to their collaboration. METHODS: The included items were identified using a systematic Internet research and verified through a qualitative interview study. The identified major information needs included medical issues, research, social help offers, and current events. These categories further comprised sublevels of diagnosis, therapy, general disease pattern, current studies, study results, registers, psychosocial counseling, self-help, and sociolegal advice. The analytic hierarchy process was selected as the group decision-making tool. A sensitivity analysis was used to determine the stability and distribution of results. t tests were utilized to examine the results' significance. RESULTS: A total of 176 questionnaires were collected; we excluded some questionnaires in line with our chosen consistency level of 0.2. Ultimately, 120 patients, 24 family members, and 32 physicians participated in the study (48 men and 128 women, mean age=48 years, age range=17-87 years). Rankings and preference weights were highly heterogeneous. Global ranking positions of patients, family members, and physicians are shown in parentheses, as follows: medical issues (3/4, 4, 4), research (3/4, 2/3, 3), social help offers (1, 2/3, 2), and current events (2, 1, 1); diagnosis (6, 8, 9), therapy (5, 9, 7), general disease pattern (9, 4/5/6, 6), current studies (7, 4/5/6, 3), study results (8, 7, 8), registers (4, 1, 5), psychosocial counseling (1, 2, 4), self-help (3, 3, 2), and sociolegal advice (2, 4/5/6, 1). Differences were verified for patients for 5 information categories (P=.03), physicians for 6 information categories (P=.03), and family members for 4 information categories (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Our results offer a clear-cut information structure that can transparently translate group decisions into practice. Furthermore, we found different preference structures for rare disease information among patients, family members, and physicians. Some websites already address differences in comprehension between those subgroups. Similar to pharmaceutical companies, health information providers on rare diseases should also acknowledge different information needs to improve the accessibility of information.

Measuring patients' priorities using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in comparison with Best-Worst-Scaling and rating cards: methodological aspects and ranking tasks.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patient priorities and preference measurements have gained importance as patients claim a more active role in health care decision making. Due to the variety of existing methods, it is challenging to define an appropriate method for each decision problem. This study demonstrates the impact of the non-standardized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method on priorities, and compares it with Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) and ranking card methods. METHODS: We investigated AHP results for different Consistency Ratio (CR) thresholds, aggregation methods, and sensitivity analyses. We also compared criteria rankings of AHP with BWS and ranking cards results by Kendall's tau b. RESULTS: The sample for our decision analysis consisted of 39 patients with rare diseases and mean age of 53.82 years. The mean weights of the two groups of CR ≤ 0.1 and CR ≤ 0.2 did not differ significantly. For the aggregation by individual priority (AIP) method, the CR was higher than for aggregation by individual judgment (AIJ). In contrast, the weights of AIJ were similar compared to AIP, but some criteria's rankings differed. Weights aggregated by geometric mean, median, and mean showed deviating results and rank reversals. Sensitivity analyses showed instable rankings. Moderate to high correlations between the rankings resulting from AHP and BWS. LIMITATIONS: Limitations were the small sample size and the heterogeneity of the patients with different rare diseases. CONCLUSION: In the AHP method, the number of included patients is associated with the threshold of the CR and choice of the aggregation method, whereas both directions of influence could be demonstrated. Therefore, it is important to implement standards for the AHP method. The choice of method should depend on the trade-off between the burden for participants and possibilities for analyses.

Comparison of different approaches applied in Analytic Hierarchy Process - an example of information needs of patients with rare diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used to measure patient priorities. Studies have shown that there are several different approaches to data acquisition and data aggregation. The aim of this study was to measure the information needs of patients having a rare disease and to analyze the effects of these different AHP approaches. The ranking of information needs is then used to display information categories on a web-based information portal about rare diseases according to the patient's priorities. METHODS: The information needs of patients suffering from rare diseases were identified by an Internet research study and a preliminary qualitative study. Hence, we designed a three-level hierarchy containing 13 criteria. For data acquisition, the differences in outcomes were investigated using individual versus group judgements separately. Furthermore, we analyzed the different effects when using the median and arithmetic and geometric means for data aggregation. A consistency ratio ≤0.2 was determined to represent an acceptable consistency level. RESULTS: Forty individual and three group judgements were collected from patients suffering from a rare disease and their close relatives. The consistency ratio of 31 individual and three group judgements was acceptable and thus these judgements were included in the study. To a large extent, the local ranks for individual and group judgements were similar. Interestingly, group judgements were in a significantly smaller range than individual judgements. According to our data, the ranks of the criteria differed slightly according to the data aggregation method used. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to explain and justify the choice of an appropriate method for data acquisition because response behaviors differ according to the method. We conclude that researchers should select a suitable method based on the thematic perspective or investigated topics in the study. Because the arithmetic mean is very vulnerable to outliers, the geometric mean and the median seem to be acceptable alternatives for data aggregation. Overall, using the AHP to identify patient priorities and enhance the user-friendliness of information websites offers an important contribution to medical informatics.

Adopting Quality Criteria for Websites Providing Medical Information About Rare Diseases.

BACKGROUND: The European Union considers diseases to be rare when they affect less than 5 in 10,000 people. It is estimated that there are between 5000 and 8000 different rare diseases. Consistent with this diversity, the quality of information available on the Web varies considerably. Thus, quality criteria for websites about rare diseases are needed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to generate a catalog of quality criteria suitable for rare diseases. METHODS: First, relevant certificates and quality recommendations for health information websites were identified through a comprehensive Web search. Second, all considered quality criteria of each certification program and catalog were examined, extracted into an overview table, and analyzed by thematic content. Finally, an interdisciplinary expert group verified the relevant quality criteria. RESULTS: We identified 9 quality certificates and criteria catalogs for health information websites with 304 single criteria items. Through this, we aggregated 163 various quality criteria, each assigned to one of the following categories: thematic, technical, service, content, and legal. Finally, a consensus about 13 quality criteria for websites offering medical information on rare diseases was determined. Of these categories, 4 (data protection concept, imprint, creation and updating date, and possibility to contact the website provider) were identified as being the most important for publishing medical information about rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of different quality criteria appearing within a relatively small number of criteria catalogs shows that the opinion of what is important in the quality of health information differs. In addition, to define useful quality criteria for websites about rare diseases, which are an essential source of information for many patients, a trade-off is necessary between the high standard of quality criteria for health information websites in general and the limited provision of information about some rare diseases. Finally, transparently presented quality assessments can help people to find reliable information and to assess its quality.