Exploring the acceptability of a community-enhanced intervention to improve decision support partnership between patients with chronic kidney disease and their family caregivers.

Patients face numerous health-related decisions once advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is diagnosed. Yet, when patients are underprepared to navigate and discuss health-related decisions, they can make choices inconsistent with their expectations for the future. This pilot study, guided by the multiphase optimization strategy and community-engaged research principles, aimed to explore the acceptability of a developed patient component to a decision-support training intervention called ImPart (Improving Decisional Partnership of CKD Dyads). CKD patients and their family caregivers were recruited from an urban, academic medical center. Eligibility criteria for patients included a diagnosis of stage 3 or higher CKD (on chart review), and caregivers participated in interview sessions only. Patients without a caregiver were not eligible. The intervention was lay coach, telephone-delivered, and designed to be administered in 1-2 week intervals for 4 sessions. An interview guide, developed in collaboration with an advisory group, was designed to ascertain participants' experiences with the intervention. Caregiver interviews focused on changes in the patient's decision ability or engagement. Thirteen patients and eleven caregivers were interviewed. The program was viewed as "good" or "beneficial." Three themes capture the intervention's impact- 1) Frequent and deliberate disease-focused communication, 2) Future planning activation, and 3) Coaching relationship. The piloted intervention was successfully delivered, acceptable to use, and found to promote enhanced disease and future planning communication. By undergoing this work, we ensure that the patient component is feasible to use and meets the needs of participants before implementation in a larger factorial trial.

Comparing helpful and hindering processes in good and poor outcome cases: A qualitative metasynthesis of eight Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design studies.

Objective: We tested qualitative metasynthesis of a series of Hermeneutic Single Case Efficacy Design (HSCED) studies as a method for comparing within-session processes that may explain good and poor therapeutic outcome. Method: We selected eight HSCED studies according to change in clients' scores on the Strathclyde Inventory (SI), a brief self-report instrument used to measure outcome in person-centered psychotherapy. Four of the case studies investigated the experience of clients whose pre-post change in SI scores showed improvement by the end of therapy, and the other four focused on clients whose change in SI scores indicated deterioration. We conducted a qualitative metasynthesis, adopting a generic descriptive-interpretive approach to analyze and compare the data generated by the HSCED studies. Results: In contrast to improvers, deteriorators appeared to be less ready to engage in therapeutic work at the beginning of therapy, and found the process more difficult; their therapists were less able to respond to these difficulties in a responsive, empathic manner; deteriorators were less able to cope successfully with changes of therapist and, eventually, gave up on therapy. Conclusion: We found that our qualitative metasynthesis of a series of HSCED studies produced a plausible explanation for the contrasting outcomes that occurred.