How to co-design a health literacy-informed intervention based on a needs assessment study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a co-designed health literacy (HL)-informed intervention for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that enables them to find, understand, remember, use and communicate the health information needed to promote and maintain good health. DESIGN: This study used a co-design approach informed by the programme logic of the Ophelia (Optimising Health Literacy and Access) process. The co-design included workshops where possible solutions for an HL-informed intervention were discussed based on an HL needs assessment study. SETTINGS: Five workshops were performed in a local community setting in the specialist and municipality healthcare services in Oslo, Norway. PARTICIPANTS: People with COPD, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (HCPs) from the municipality and specialist healthcare services, and researchers (n=19) participated in the workshops. The co-designed HL-informed intervention was based on seven focus groups with people with COPD (n=14) and HCPs (n=21), and a cross-sectional study of people with COPD using the Health Literacy Questionnaire (n=69). RESULTS: The workshop co-design process identified 45 action points and 51 description points for possible intervention solutions to meet the HL needs of people with COPD. The final recommendation for an HL-informed intervention focused on tailored follow-up after hospitalisation, which uses motivational interviewing techniques, is based on the individual's HL, self-management and quality of life needs and is implemented in cooperation with HCPs in both the specialist and municipality healthcare services. CONCLUSION: During the codesign process, the workshop group generated several ideas for how to help patients find, understand, remember, use and communicate health information in order to promote and maintain good health. People with COPD need tailored follow-up based on their individual HL needs by HCPs that have knowledge of COPD and are able to motivate them for self-management tasks and help them to improve their quality of life (QOL) and decrease hospitalisation.

Comparison of two behavioural pain scales for the assessment of procedural pain: A systematic review.

AIM: To examine the clinical utility and measurement properties of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioural Pain Scale when used to assess pain during procedures in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO (01 October 2019). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed by a pair of authors working independently. Different psychometric properties were addressed: inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity and criterion validity. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. Both Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and the Behavioural Pain Scale showed good reliability and validity and were good options for assessing pain during painful procedures with intensive care unit patients unable to self-report on pain. The Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool is to be preferred since this tool was shown to have particularly good reliability and validity in assessing pain during procedures, but the Behavioural Pain Scale is an appropriate alternative.

Health-care professionals' assessment of a person-centred intervention to empower self-management and health across chronic illness: Qualitative findings from a process evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) empowers patients to manage their chronic illness and promote their health in accordance with their own beliefs, values and preferences. Drawing on health-care professional's (HCP's) experiences implementing an empowerment-focused, person-centred intervention called the Bodyknowledging Program (BKP), we undertook a process evaluation that aimed to assess the impact on patient health and well-being. METHODS: We used individual in-depth interviews and semi-structured focus groups comprising n = 8 interprofessional HCP who facilitated intervention sessions with n = 58 patients situated in Norwegian specialist care sites. Content analysis was used to analyse the data and summarize major themes. RESULTS: Health-care professional interviews revealed four main ways in which the intervention operated in support of health-related patient outcomes: (i) addressing the whole person; (ii) hope and affirmation; (iii) expanding recovery; and (iv) social support and revitalized relationships. The intervention provided new tools for patients to understand the social, emotional and physical impact of their illness. Health-care professional reported new insights to facilitate patient engagement and to promote patients' health. CONCLUSIONS: The Bodyknowledging Program facilitated patient engagement through the promotion of patient-centred care while developing the patients' ability to exploit their own resources for effectively managing their health within illness. The process evaluation supported the underlying theoretical basis of the intervention and was suggestive of its potential transferability elsewhere.