Patient perspectives in adverse event reporting after vaginal apical prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use systematic methodology to monitor adverse events and determine grade (severity), expectedness, and relatedness to treatments as determined by clinicians. However, patient perspectives are often not included in this process. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinician vs patient grading of adverse event severity in a urogynecologic surgical trial. Secondary objectives were to estimate the association of patient grading of adverse events with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if patient perspective changes over time. STUDY DESIGN: This was a planned supplementary study (Patient Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting [PPAR]) to a randomized trial comparing 3 surgical approaches to vaginal apical prolapse. In the parent trial, adverse events experienced by patients were collected per a standardized protocol every 6 months during which clinicians graded adverse event severity (mild, moderate, severe/life-threatening). In this substudy, we obtained additional longitudinal patient perspectives for 19 predetermined "PPAR adverse events." Patients provided their own severity grading (mild, moderate, severe/very severe/life-threatening) at initial assessment and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Clinicians and patients were masked to each other's reporting. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement (kappa statistic) for adverse event severity between the initial clinician and patient assessment, combining patient grades of mild and moderate. The association between adverse event severity and the Decision Regret Scale, Satisfaction with Decision Scale, the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scores was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) for continuous scales, the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and t tests or chi-square tests comparing the assessments of patients who rated their adverse events or symptoms as severe with those who gave other ratings. To describe patient perspective changes over time, the intraobserver agreement was estimated for adverse event severity grade over time using weighted kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Of the 360 randomly assigned patients, 219 (61%) experienced a total of 527 PPAR adverse events (91% moderate and 9% severe/life-threatening by clinician grading). Mean patient age was 67 years; 87% were White and 12% Hispanic. Among the patients reporting any PPAR event, the most common were urinary tract infection (61%), de novo urgency urinary incontinence (35%), stress urinary incontinence (22%), and fecal incontinence (13%). Overall agreement between clinician and participant grading of severity was poor (kappa=0.24 [95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.34]). Of the 414 adverse events that clinicians graded as moderate, patients graded 120 (29%) as mild and 80 (19%) as severe. Of the 39 adverse events graded as severe by clinicians, patients graded 15 (38%) as mild or moderate. Initial patient grading of the most severe reported adverse event was mildly correlated with worse Decision Regret Scale (ρ=0.2; P=.01), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (ρ=-0.24; P<.01), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (P<.01) scores. There was no association between adverse event severity and Satisfaction with Decision Scale score. Patients with an initial grading of "severe" had more regret, lower quality of life, and poorer global impressions of health than those whose worst severity grade was mild (P<.05). Agreement between the patients' initial severity ratings and their ratings at 12 months (kappa=0.48 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.58]) and 36 months (kappa=0.45 [95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.53]) was fair. CONCLUSION: Clinician and patient perceptions of adverse event severity are discordant. Worse severity from the patient perspective was associated with patient-centered outcomes. Including the patient perspective provides additional information for evaluating surgical procedures.

Telemetric ICP monitoring in children: a national questionnaire-based study.

PURPOSE: Telemetric monitoring of intracranial pressure (ICP) facilitates long-term measurements and home monitoring, thus potentially reducing diagnostic imaging and acute hospital admissions in favour of outpatient appointments. Especially in paediatric patients, telemetric ICP monitoring requires a high level of collaboration and compliance from patients and parents. In this study, we aim to systematically investigate (1) patient and parent perception of telemetric ICP system utility and (2) hospital contact history and thus the potential cost-benefit of telemetric ICP monitoring in paediatric patients with a cerebrospinal fluid disorder. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide questionnaire study, including paediatric patients with either a current or previous telemetric ICP sensor and their parents. Additionally, a retrospective review of electronic health records for all included children was performed. RESULTS: We included 16 children (age range 3-16 years), with a total of 41 telemetric ICP sensors implanted. Following sensor implantation, the frequency of telephone contacts and outpatient visits increased. No corresponding decrease in hospital admissions or total length of stay was found. The telemetric ICP sensor provided most parents with an improved sense of security and was seen as a necessary and valuable tool in treatment guidance. The size and shape of the sensor itself were reported as disadvantages, while the external monitoring equipment was reported as easy to use but too large and heavy for a child to carry. CONCLUSION: Though, in quantitative terms, there was no cost-benefit of the telemetric ICP sensor, it contributed to extended parental involvement and a sense of improved safety.

Comparison of the accuracy of three interproximal reduction methods used in clear aligner treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To comparatively assess 3 interproximal reduction (IPR) methods used in clear aligner treatment with regard to accuracy, and patient perception of discomfort and anxiety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 42 patients, treated with the Invisalign® system, were included in this prospective trial and received one of the following IPR methods: hand-operated abrasive strips (group 1; 14 patients, 150 teeth), motor-driven 3/4 oscillating segmental discs (group 2; 14 patients, 134 teeth), or motor-driven abrasive strips (group 3; 14 patients, 133 teeth). Accuracy was evaluated using the difference between planned and executed IPR. Anxiety and discomfort levels experienced by the patients were evaluated using a questionnaire of 17 questions. RESULTS: The accuracy of IPR was high in groups 2 and 3; however, it was low in group 1 with the executed IPR significantly less than the planned amount. On quadrant-level, executed IPR was significantly less in the upper left quadrant in group 1, and significantly more in the upper right quadrant in group 2. The difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was significant for teeth 11, 21, 32, 33, and 43 in group 1, indicating deficiency. The average difference between planned IPR and executed IPR was 0.08 mm for group 1, 0.09 mm for group 2, and 0.1 mm for group 3. Anxiety and discomfort levels did not differ between the methods, but a negative correlation was observed between age and discomfort and anxiety levels. CONCLUSIONS: The overall accuracy of the 2 motor-driven IPR methods was found to be better than the hand-operated system. Maxillary central incisors and mandibular canines were more prone to IPR deficiency when hand-operated abrasive strips were utilized. Patients were similarly comfortable with all 3 methods, and discomfort and anxiety levels decreased with age. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Motor-driven methods have proven to be more effective when compared to the hand-operated ones by means of precision, speed, and patient comfort. If the clinician favors a hand-operated method, it may be advised to perform slightly more IPR especially on mandibular canines and maxillary central incisors.

Agreement between the perception of colon cleansing reported by patients and colon cleansing assessed by a validated colon cleansing scale.

AIMS: Patients' perception of their cleansing quality can guide strategies to improve cleansing during colonoscopy. There are no studies assessing the agreement between the quality of cleansing perceived by patients and cleansing quality assessed during colonoscopy using validated bowel preparation scales. The main aim of this study was to compare the cleansing quality reported by patients with the quality during colonoscopy using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to an outpatient colonoscopy were included. Four drawings representing different degrees of cleansing were designed. Patients chose the drawing that most resembled the last stool. The predictive ability of the patient's perception and agreement between the patient's perception and the BBPS were calculated. A BBPS score of <2 points in any segment was considered inadequate. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-three patients were included (age: 62.8±13.7 years, male: 53.4%). Overall, 107 patients (16.9%) had inadequate cleansing during colonoscopy, and in 12.2% of cases, the patient's perception was poor. The patient's perception compared to the quality of cleanliness during colonoscopy presented a positive and negative predictive value of 54.6% and 88.3%, respectively. The agreement between patient perception and the BBPS was significant (P<0.001), although fair (k=0.37). The results were similar in a validation cohort of 378 patients (k=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The cleanliness perceived by the patient and the quality of cleanliness using a validated scale were correlated, although fair. However, this measure satisfactorily identified patients with adequate preparation. Cleansing rescue strategies may target patients who self-report improper cleaning. Registration number of the trial: NCT03830489.

Development of a questionnaire for patient perception to functional appliances.

OBJECTIVE: To developed and evaluate the validity, reliability, and Arabic translation of a questionnaire for preadolescent perception to removable functional appliances. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A new questionnaire was drafted based on previously used questionnaires. Twelve orthodontic experts were selected within content and face validity panel and twenty preadolescents wearing functional appliances were participated in the face validation of the questionnaire. Two rounds of content validity were performed with the same experts. The final form of the validated questionnaire was translated from English to Arabic language. The content validity index (CVI) was used for content validity and the Cronbach's alpha test was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire. RESULTS: During the first round of content validity, 50 items were relevant to the underlying construct (Item-CVI ≥ 0.78), while four items were considered not valid (Item-CVI < 0.78) and the average scale-CVI was 0.93. In terms of face validation by experts, the percentage of agreement was adequate (96.4%). The questionnaire was modified by removing the non-valid items, adding/modifying items, and merging some categories. For second round of content validity, all items were found to be valid (I-CVI ≥ 0.78) and the overall questionnaire had adequate content validity (Scale-CVI/Ave = 0.94). The translated valid questionnaire also achieved a perfect agreement (100%) for face validity by patients. The internal consistency was appropriate (≥ 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: A new valid, reliable, and translated questionnaire (English and Arabic versions) that cover the majority of aspects of patients' perception during treatment with removable functional appliances has been developed.

Patient and the Public's Perceptions of Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is an effective therapeutic modality for obesity and related comorbidities, yet it remains significantly underutilized. Patient perceptions and expectations may influence the decisions of eligible patients in pursuing surgery. METHODS: PubMed, SCOPUS, and OVID databases were searched in July 2022 to identify published studies discussing patient and the public's perceptions of bariatric surgery. RESULTS: The literature shows participants often reported bariatric surgery to be a life-changing intervention known to induce weight loss, improve obesity-related comorbidities, and improve quality of life. However, a significant proportion of survey respondents perceived bariatric surgery as unsafe or risky. Patients belonging to racial minority groups cited higher concern with mortality risk, lower weight loss expectations, and different motivations to pursue bariatric surgery. Female patients were significantly more likely to have more positive perceptions of, and higher expectations of weight loss from, bariatric surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The literature highlighted discordance between patient perceptions and the demonstrated clinical safety and efficacy profile of bariatric surgery. Overestimations of the risks, unrealistic expectations, and unfamiliarity with bariatric surgery outcomes were common findings. These perceptions of bariatric surgery may contribute to its underutilization among eligible patients. Perceptions and motivations often varied by race, region, sex, and age, which demonstrates the necessity of patient-centered education in the prereferral stage. The literature also demonstrated misconceptions of bariatric surgery among the public. Further research should explore the impact of education on the perceptions of patients and the public.

How do implant patients experience complications? A cross-sectional multicentre pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the impact of implant-related complications on perceived pain, functional impairment, concern, quality of life (QoL) and confidence which were the study's primary outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited in five centres over 19 months. They completed a structured ad hoc questionnaire scoring pain, chewing ability, concern, QoL and confidence in future implant treatment. Some potential independent variables were also recorded. The data were analysed descriptively and with a multiple-stepwise regression model for correlations of the five primary variables with the other data. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 408 patients, with prosthesis mobility being the most common complication (40.7%). Most patients (79.2%) consulted because of a complication, while 20.8% were asymptomatic and consulted regularly. Pain was correlated with symptoms at consultation and in biological/mixed complications (p < .001; R2 = 44.8%). Chewing impairment with implant loss, prosthesis fracture and removable implant-supported or total prostheses (p < .001; R2 = 42.8%); patient concern was correlated with the clinical symptoms and removable implant-supported prostheses (p < .001; R2 = 36.1%); impact on QoL was correlated with implant loss, prosthesis fracture and removable implant-supported prostheses (p < .001; R2 = 41.1%). Patient confidence was relatively independent and only impact on quality of life significantly influenced it (r = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-related complications moderately impaired patients' perceptions of pain, chewing ability, concern and QoL. Nevertheless, complications only slightly reduced their confidence in future implant treatment.

Characteristics and perceptions of utilising telehealth for predominantly middle-aged to older, metropolitan-based general medical patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective post-pandemic telehealth (TH) requires understanding patients' characteristics and perceptions, which have not been established in broader clinical services and are independent of TH appointments. AIMS: To understand medical patients' characteristics and perspectives on using TH. METHODS: General medical patients in a statewide tertiary hospital in Victoria, Australia received a de-identified survey independent of TH appointments during visits between July and November 2020. Patients' characteristics, access to devices enabling TH, knowledge of TH and willingness to use TH were analysed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1600 patients, 754 (46.4% female, aged 72.0 years [59.0-83.0]) were able to complete the survey. The majority lived in metropolitan areas (74.4%), owned at least one TH device (98.1%) and had internet access at home (55.6%). About 52.7% of patients were comfortable with their devices, and 43.5% had successfully used TH. Although patients preferred face-to-face appointments (80.8%) and 41.4% agreed TH would be as good as in-person appointments, 63.9% were interested in future TH appointments. Patients preferring face-to-face appointments were older (P = 0.008) and had lower education levels (P = 0.010), whereas patients preferring TH had video TH devices (P < 0.05), were comfortable with their devices (P = 0.002) and were willing to use TH (P < 0.05). TH cost saving was parking AU$10.0 [0.0-15.0], driving AU$5.8 [4.5-19.9], public transport AU$8.00 [5.0-10.0], taxis AU$30.00 [15.0-50.0] and time AU$153.2 [76.6-153.2]. CONCLUSION: From predominantly middle-aged to older, metropolitan-based general medical patients completing the survey, most patienpreferred face-to-face appointments to TH. Health services should subsidise those in need of TH and target the patients' barriers to effective TH use.

Examining the factors associated with inpatients' perception of overtreatment in Korea: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients' perception of receiving overtreatment can cause distrust in medical services. Unlike outpatients, inpatients are highly likely to receive many medical services without fully understanding their medical situation. This information asymmetry could prompt inpatients to perceive treatment as excessive. This study tested the hypothesis that there are systematic patterns in inpatients' perceptions of overtreatment. METHODS: We examined determinant factors of inpatients' perception of overtreatment in a cross-sectional design that used data from the 2017 Korean Health Panel (KHP), a nationally representative survey. For sensitivity analysis, the concept of overtreatment was analyzed by dividing it into a broad meaning (any overtreatment) and a narrow meaning (strict overtreatment). We performed chi-square for descriptive statistics, and multivariate logistic regression with sampling weights employing Andersen's behavioral model. RESULTS: There were 1,742 inpatients from the KHP data set that were included in the analysis. Among them, 347 (19.9%) reported any overtreatment and 77 (4.42%) reported strict overtreatment. Furthermore, we found that the inpatient's perception of overtreatment was associated with gender, marital status, income level, chronic disease, subjective health status, health recovery, and general tertiary hospital. CONCLUSION: Medical institutions should understand factors that contribute to inpatients' perception of overtreatment to mitigate patients' complaints due to information asymmetry. Moreover, based on the result of this study, government agencies, such as the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, should create policy-based controls and evaluate overtreatment behavior of the medical providers and intervene in the miscommunication between patients and providers.

No major difference in perceived quality of care in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis assessed in a physical therapy-led triage compared with standard care: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical therapy-led orthopedic triage is a care model used to optimize pathways for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. However, scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this model of care is still limited and only a few studies report patients' perception of it. The aim of this study was to compare patients' perceived quality of care after physical therapy-led triage with standard practice in a secondary care setting for patients with primary hip or knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this randomized study, patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis referred for an orthopedic consultation received either physical therapy-led triage (n = 344) or a standard care assessment by an orthopedic surgeon (n = 294). To evaluate the patients' perceived quality of care, a short version of the Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) questionnaire was sent to the patients within a week after their assessment. The primary outcome was the statement "I received the best examination and treatment" on QPP. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients (70%, physical therapy-led triage: n = 249, standard care: n = 199) answered the questionnaire. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome between the groups (p = 0.6). Participants in the triage group perceived themselves to have received significantly better information about how to take care of their osteoarthritis (p = 0.017) compared with the standard care group. The standard care group reported that they participated in the decision-making process to a greater extent (p = 0.005), that their expectations were met to a greater degree (p = 0.013), and that their care depended more on their need for care rather than the caregivers' routines (0.007). CONCLUSION: Both groups report high perceived quality of care. Significant differences were found in four of 14 questions, one in favor of the physical therapist and three in favor of the standard care group. The findings of this study are in line with previous research and support the use of this care model for patients with hip or knee OA in secondary care. However, due to the dropout size, the results should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT04665908, registered 14/12/2020.

Patients' Views on AI for Risk Prediction in Shared Decision-Making for Knee Replacement Surgery: Qualitative Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making around knee replacement surgery is increasing, and this technology holds promise to improve the prediction of patient outcomes. Ambiguity surrounds the definition of AI, and there are mixed views on its application in clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to explore the understanding and attitudes of patients who underwent knee replacement surgery regarding AI in the context of risk prediction for shared clinical decision-making. METHODS: This qualitative study involved patients who underwent knee replacement surgery at a tertiary referral center for joint replacement surgery. The participants were selected based on their age and sex. Semistructured interviews explored the participants' understanding of AI and their opinions on its use in shared clinical decision-making. Data collection and reflexive thematic analyses were conducted concurrently. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved with 19 interviews and confirmed with 1 additional interview, resulting in 20 participants being interviewed (female participants: n=11, 55%; male participants: n=9, 45%; median age: 66 years). A total of 11 (55%) participants had a substantial postoperative complication. Three themes captured the participants' understanding of AI and their perceptions of its use in shared clinical decision-making. The theme Expectations captured the participants' views of themselves as individuals with the right to self-determination as they sought therapeutic solutions tailored to their circumstances, needs, and desires, including whether to use AI at all. The theme Empowerment highlighted the potential of AI to enable patients to develop realistic expectations and equip them with personalized risk information to discuss in shared decision-making conversations with the surgeon. The theme Partnership captured the importance of symbiosis between AI and clinicians because AI has varied levels of interpretability and understanding of human emotions and empathy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent knee replacement surgery in this study had varied levels of familiarity with AI and diverse conceptualizations of its definitions and capabilities. Educating patients about AI through nontechnical explanations and illustrative scenarios could help inform their decision to use it for risk prediction in the shared decision-making process with their surgeon. These findings could be used in the process of developing a questionnaire to ascertain the views of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery on the acceptability of AI in shared clinical decision-making. Future work could investigate the accuracy of this patient group's understanding of AI, beyond their familiarity with it, and how this influences their acceptance of its use. Surgeons may play a key role in finding a place for AI in the clinical setting as the uptake of this technology in health care continues to grow.

Opportunities to improve the adoption of health-related quality of life evidence as part of the French Health Technology Assessment process.

OBJECTIVES: Patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure that is considered by many payers and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the evaluation of treatments. We aimed to identify opportunities for HRQoL to be further incorporated into the assessment of the French HTA by comparing three health systems. We put forward recommendations that could bring further innovations to French patients. METHODS: We reviewed methodologies by the French, German and British HTA, and conducted a systematic review of all French (n = 312) and German (n = 175) HTA appraisals from 01 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. We also setup an advisory board of 11 ex-HTA leaders, payers, methodologists, healthcare providers and patient advocates, from France, Britain and Germany, to discuss opportunities to improve acceptance and adoption of HRQoL evidence in France. RESULTS: Our systematic review of HTA appraisals showed a higher HRQoL data rejection rate in France: in > 75% of cases the HRQoL evidence submitted was not accepted for the assessment (usually for methodological reasons, for example, data being considered exploratory; 16-75% of the appraisals mentioned HRQoL evidence, varying by therapeutic area). Overall, we found the French HTA to be more restrictive in its approach than IQWiG. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings we articulate collaborative proposals for industry and the HAS to improve acceptance of HRQoL evidence and create a positive feedback loop between HAS and industry along four dimensions (1) patient perception, (2) testing hierarchy, (3) trial design and (4) data collection.

Patient Insight With Collagenase Treatment for Dupuytren: A Prospective Study.

PURPOSE: There appears to be controversy regarding differing patient and physician perceptions of adverse effects (AEs) in the treatment of Dupuytren disease with collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH). The aim of this study was to compare the number, type, and severity of AEs perceived and reported by patients and by their physician METHODS: To assess AEs following CCH injection in a standardized way, patients were given a list of predefined complications and asked to rate their severity on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (serious) to 4 (insignificant). RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included. Patients reported fewer AEs than their physician (mean, 1.48 vs 2.18). There was no agreement between physician- and patient-reported AEs except for skin lacerations, which showed fair agreement (κ = 0.257). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians differ in their evaluation of AEs due to CCH treatment in Dupuytren disease. A fair level of agreement was observed for skin lacerations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater consensus is needed when defining AEs associated with CCH in the treatment of Dupuytren disease.

Patient-Perceived Outcomes of Recovery After Trigger Digit Release.

PURPOSE: Trigger finger release (TFR) is one of the most commonly performed hand surgeries; nevertheless, the time until patients subjectively feel recovered has not been well documented. The limited literature on patient perceptions of recovery after any type of surgery has described that patients and surgeons may have differing views on the time until full recovery. Our primary study question was to determine how long it takes for patients to subjectively feel fully recovered after TFR. METHODS: In this prospective study, patients who underwent isolated TFR completed questionnaires before surgery and at multiple time points following surgery until they reported full recovery. Patients completed visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) and were asked if they felt fully recovered at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTS: The average time to self-reported full recovery was 6.2 months (SD 2.6), and the median time to self-reported full recovery was 6 months (IQR 4 months). At 12 months, four out of 50 patients (8%) did not feel fully recovered. QuickDASH and VAS pain scores improved significantly from preoperative assessment to final follow-up. All patients reported improvement in both VAS pain scores and QuickDASH scores greater than the minimal clinically important difference between 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery. Higher preoperative VAS and QuickDASH scores were associated with failure to fully recover by 12 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The length of time after surgery until patients felt fully recovered after isolated TFR is longer than the senior authors' expectations. This suggests that patients and surgeons may consider distinctly different parameters when discussing recovery. Surgeons should be aware of this discrepancy when discussing recovery after surgery. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Patient Comments on a Hospital- and University-Based Exercise Oncology Program.

The purpose of this study was to identify referral source and patient-reported factors that promoted follow-through and participation in exercise oncology rehabilitation programs. A three question open-ended survey was administered to patients enrolled in trainer-supervised, hospital-based (n = 101), or university-based (n = 17) cancer rehabilitation program that provided 12 weeks of individualized one on one aerobic and resistance training 1-3 days per week. Significant themes for each question were as follows: Question #1. Who referred you to the program/facility? Oncology team (Χ2 = 145.814 P ≤ 0.001); Question #2. What convinced you to follow through with the referral? Health, fatigue, and need for supervision (Χ2 = 74.814 P ≤ 0.001); and Question #3. What motivates you to continue in the program? Personal results, getting healthy, and the trainer (Χ2 = 108.729 P ≤ 0.001). In this study, oncology team referral confirms previous work. Patient follow-through and continuation appear largely self-motivated as patients' health and the attainment of health through personal results are primary motivators for continuation in the program. Question #3 responses note the importance of the trainer in maintaining continuation in an exercise oncology rehabilitation program.

Scale development to measure the patient perception of patient-centered care of dentists in primary care settings of Thailand: a measurement invariance test.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care is essential for providing quality services thoroughly at the primary care level, but it is unclear and lacks measurement. This study aimed to develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure patient perception of patient-centered care in primary dental care in Thailand and test the measurement invariance between large and small community hospitals. METHODS: The initial set of 45 items for the patient perception of Patient-Centered Care of Dentist Scale (PCCDS-P version) was developed using a mixed-method approach, which included a literature review, a content validity test, cognitive interviews, and a pre-test. A multistage sampling strategy was used to recruit dental patients or their parents or caregivers from community hospitals across Thailand. Validity was examined through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the intraclass correlation coefficient. Furthermore, a multi-group analysis was conducted to compare the responses of patients from large and small community hospitals. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six and One thousand one hundred sixty-seven samples were randomized for EFA and CFA, respectively. The final PCCDS-P version consists of 7 factors with satisfactory reliability and validity and is composed of 42 items: dentist-patient relationship, disease-illness, integrated care, communication, shared information and decision-making, holistic, and empathy and anxiety management. The CFA showed the model fit was consistent with the entire sample. The metric invariance analysis showed that the factor loadings were invariant across patient groups. Overall, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient were satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PCCDS-P version is composed of seven domains with 42 items with good reliability and validity, and it indicated measurement invariance across patients in large and small community hospitals.

"I Was Here First, Why Did They Go Before Me": Examining Patients'Perceptions of Priority in a Psychometric Study of Emergency Department Triage.

INTRODUCTION: Unrealistic patient expectations for wait times can lead to poor satisfaction. This study's dual purpose was: (1) to address disparities between patients' perceived priority level and the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) assigned by emergency room triage nurses; and (2) to evaluate validity and reliability of using the Patient Perception of Priority to be Seen Survey (PPPSS) to investigate patient expectations for emergency department urgency. METHODS: A two-group pretest-posttest quasi-experimental approach compared patient urgency opinions to nurse urgency ratings with and without a scripted educational intervention. This tested how closely patient perceptions were related to triage nurse ratings. RESULTS: Reliability for the PPPSS was acceptable (reliability = 0.75). Patients who were rated lower urgency on the ESI by triage nurses tended to self-report higher urgency (rho = -0.44, P < .01). Attitudes were more consistent in the posttest patient group who were exposed to the scripted verbal description of emergency department procedures (χ2 (1, N = 352) = 8.09, P < .01). Patients who disagreed with emergency nurse scores tended to be younger on average (eg, < 40 years old; rho = 0.69, P < .01). Male identified patients tended to be rated both by nurses and themselves as higher urgency (beta = 0.18, P = .02). DISCUSSION: We recommend the PPPSS for nurses and researchers to quickly assess patient expectations. Additionally, promoting patient understanding through a scripted educational strategy about the ESI system may also result in improvements in communication between patients and nurses.

Acceptability and perceived value of urodynamics from the patient perspective: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: The value and application of urodynamic evaluation (UDS) have been a controversial topic in recent years. Gaining robust data on the patient viewpoint in this area is important since, even when UDS findings do not change the management plan, the objective diagnostic information gained from UDS may be valued by patients. Moreover, insights from UDS may empower treating physicians to counsel patients more effectively and manage their expectations regarding treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This expert narrative review aims to analyze the findings of published studies in this area, looking at two topics in turn: (a) the tolerability and acceptability of the UDS procedure itself from the patient perspective and (b) patient perceptions of the clinical value of insights provided by UDS. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: An evidence assessment was conducted using selected articles from the literature reporting data on patients' perspectives on the tolerability, acceptability, utility, and value of the urodynamic investigation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Although pain, discomfort, and infection risks are frequently used as a rationale to skip UDS when initial management fails, there is good evidence that, from the patients' perspective, the procedure is very well tolerated in most cases. There are only a few articles available that assess patient perceptions of the usefulness of UDS, but those that do exist appear to demonstrate that the insights gained from UDS are widely welcomed by patients in the interest of receiving a more tailored and personalized treatment approach. CONCLUSION: From the patient perspective, UDS appears to be a well-accepted and well-tolerated diagnostic tool in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms, particularly when an appropriate explanation is provided before the examination. Our review also highlights that patients value the objective information provided by UDS and that this outweighs the temporary invasiveness of the test. This information is particularly relevant in light of the relative lack of evidence in the literature about patient expectations of specialist care in functional urology, which may have hindered progress with quality of care.

Associations between the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition score and overactive bladder syndrome symptoms at baseline and upon treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes such as the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) score are frequently used to characterize overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) patients and their treatment outcomes. However, little information is available on the relationship of such scores to OAB symptoms at the individual patient level. METHODS: We have performed a post hoc analysis of two large noninterventional studies (n = 1345 and 745) in which patients received propiverine extended release (30 or 45 mg/day) for 12 weeks to determine the strength of nonparametric correlations between PPBC and OAB symptoms at baseline, after treatment and with treatment-associated changes thereof. RESULTS: PPBC was not correlated with age but with episode frequencies of urgency, incontinence, micturitions, and nocturia, but the strength of correlations was only moderate (Spearman rank correlation coefficient 0.2045-0.3553). Similarly moderate correlations were observed after treatment and when changes in PPBC were compared to those of OAB symptoms, although these correlations were somewhat stronger. CONCLUSIONS: PPBC is only moderately correlated to OAB symptoms indicating that it characterizes patients beyond what is captured by their symptoms.

Efficacy of keratinized mucosal augmentation with a collagen matrix concomitant to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A dual-center randomized clinical trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix to augment the width of keratinized mucosa (KM), concomitantly to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, when compared to the use of an autologous soft tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this 12-month parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned, one month after non-surgical therapy, to surgical resective treatment of peri-implantitis consisting on an apically positioned flap (APF) in combination with a KM augmentation procedure, either with an autologous free gingival graft (FGG) or a collagen matrix (CM). Primary outcomes were the increase in the width of KM and probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction at 12 months. As secondary outcomes, peri-implant radiographic and patient-reported outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population consisted of 49 subjects, assigned to either the APF + FGG (n = 23) or APF + CM (n = 26) group. PPDs were reduced by 1.6 mm (SD 1.0) and 1.7 mm (SD 1.2), respectively, being these differences non statistically significant (p = .782). However, the increase in KM was significantly higher in the APF + FGG compared with APF + CM (2.5 mm [SD 1.6] vs. 1.6 mm [SD 1.2], respectively (p = .033). CONCLUSION: The tested surgical modalities resulted in similar improvements of the clinical parameters. Both free gingival graft and collagen matrix significantly increased the peri-implant keratinized mucosa, but this KM gain was significantly higher with the free gingival graft. Use of CM, however, was better appreciated by the patients, in terms of pain perception and analgesic consumption, although the surgical time was similar.