A systematic approach to the planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of integrated health services.

BACKGROUND: Because of the current emphasis and enthusiasm focused on integration of health systems, there is a risk of piling resources into integrated strategies without the necessary systems in place to monitor their progress adequately or to measure impact, and to learn from these efforts. The rush to intervene without adequate monitoring and evaluation will continue to result in a weak evidence base for decision making and resource allocation. Program planning and implementation are inextricability linked to monitoring and evaluation. Country level guidance is needed to identify country-specific integrated strategies, thereby increasing country ownership. DISCUSSION: This paper focuses on integrated health services but takes into account how health services are influenced by the health system, managed by programs, and made up of interventions. We apply the principles in existing comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks in order to outline a systematic approach to the M&E of integration for the country level. The approach is grounded by first defining the country-specific health challenges that integration is intended to affect. Priority points of contact for care can directly influence health, and essential packages of integration for all major client presentations need to be defined. Logic models are necessary to outline the plausible causal pathways and define the inputs, roles and responsibilities, indicators, and data sources across the health system. Finally, we recommend improvements to the health information system and in data use to ensure that data are available to inform decisions, because changes in the M&E function to make it more integrated will also facilitate integration in the service delivery, planning, and governance components. SUMMARY: This approach described in the paper is the ideal, but its application at the country level can help reveal gaps and guide decisions related to what health services to prioritize for integration, help plan for how to strengthen systems to support health services, and ultimately establish an evidence base to inform investments in health care. More experience is needed to understand if the approach is feasible; similarly, more emphasis is needed on documenting the process of designing and implemented integrated interventions at the national level.

Developing a patient-centered outcome measure for complementary and alternative medicine therapies I: defining content and format.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies often report shifts in well-being that go beyond resolution of the original presenting symptoms. We undertook a research program to develop and evaluate a patient-centered outcome measure to assess the multidimensional impacts of CAM therapies, utilizing a novel mixed methods approach that relied upon techniques from the fields of anthropology and psychometrics. This tool would have broad applicability, both for CAM practitioners to measure shifts in patients' states following treatments, and conventional clinical trial researchers needing validated outcome measures. The US Food and Drug Administration has highlighted the importance of valid and reliable measurement of patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of conventional medical products. Here we describe Phase I of our research program, the iterative process of content identification, item development and refinement, and response format selection. Cognitive interviews and psychometric evaluation are reported separately. METHODS: From a database of patient interviews (n = 177) from six diverse CAM studies, 150 interviews were identified for secondary analysis in which individuals spontaneously discussed unexpected changes associated with CAM. Using ATLAS.ti, we identified common themes and language to inform questionnaire item content and wording. Respondents' language was often richly textured, but item development required a stripping down of language to extract essential meaning and minimize potential comprehension barriers across populations. Through an evocative card sort interview process, we identified those items most widely applicable and covering standard psychometric domains. We developed, pilot-tested, and refined the format, yielding a questionnaire for cognitive interviews and psychometric evaluation. RESULTS: The resulting questionnaire contained 18 items, in visual analog scale format, in which each line was anchored by the positive and negative extremes relevant to the experiential domain. Because of frequent informant allusions to response set shifts from before to after CAM therapies, we chose a retrospective pretest format. Items cover physical, emotional, cognitive, social, spiritual, and whole person domains. CONCLUSIONS: This paper reports the success of a novel approach to the development of outcome instruments, in which items are extracted from patients' words instead of being distilled from pre-existing theory. The resulting instrument, focused on measuring shifts in patients' perceptions of health and well-being along pre-specified axes, is undergoing continued testing, and is available for use by cooperating investigators.

An HMO-based prospective pilot study of energy medicine for chronic headaches: whole-person outcomes point to the need for new instrumentation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate an energy healing treatment for possible inclusion as a Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW) Pain Clinic provided therapy, and to identify the appropriate number of treatment sessions for a Pain Clinic protocol, should the intervention prove successful. In addition, our intent was to document the full range of outcomes experienced by patients undergoing energy healing, including whole-person and transformative outcomes should they occur. SETTING: The setting for this study was Kaiser Permanente Northwest Pain Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen (13) patients with chronic headache who were members of the KPNW Health Plan were recruited through flyers or mailings. METHODS: Thirteen (13) participants received at least three energy healing sessions at approximately weekly intervals. Assessments were based on pre- and post-treatment qualitative interviews. INTERVENTION: The treatment consisted of three Healing Touch sessions provided by a Certified Healing Touch Practitioner. Treatments contained elements common to all sessions, and elements that were tailored to the individual subject. RESULTS: Twelve (12) of 13 participants experienced improvement in frequency, intensity, or duration of pain after three treatments. In addition, 11 of 13 participants experienced profound shifts in their view of themselves, their lives, and their potential for healing and transformation. These changes lasted from 24 hours to more than 6 months at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Energy healing can be an important addition to pain management services. More in-depth qualitative research is needed to explore the diversity of outcomes facilitated by energy healing treatments. Furthermore, the development of new instrumentation is warranted to capture outcomes that reflect transformative change and changes at the level of the whole person.