Qualitative Analysis of Patient Experiences Reaching Urethroplasty for Recurrent Urethral Stricture Disease.

PURPOSE: Despite the inferior outcomes, urethral stricture patients often undergo multiple endoscopic procedures prior to undergoing definitive urethroplasty. We sought to qualitatively evaluate the patient experience of obtaining urethroplasty to better understand the impact of this experience on quality of life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with urethroplasty between September 2019 and July 2021 were identified and invited to participate in our study if they had undergone ≥ 2 endoscopic procedures prior to urethroplasty. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted, coded, and analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Of the 105 urethroplasty patients during the study period, 50 (47.6%) had undergone ≥ 2 endoscopic procedures prior (IQR 3-5), of whom 20 participated in the study. Qualitative themes related to repeat endoscopic procedures included unmet treatment expectations, dissatisfaction with catheterization and repeat procedures, and negative impacts of recurrent stricture symptoms and treatments on quality of life. External factors associated with a delay to urethroplasty included financial constraints, surgeon access, and time off work. CONCLUSIONS: A trajectory of declining quality of life and unmet treatment expectations are the primary factors driving the decision to proceed with urethroplasty. However, external factors such as recovery costs and access to specialists play important roles in delaying surgery. These findings illustrate the need for improved community provider education and patient counseling to better inform expectations of both patients and providers with various treatment outcomes. Furthermore, these data highlight the need to improve access to specialized care for urethral stricture patients.

Determinants of appropriate antibiotic and NSAID prescribing in unscheduled outpatient settings in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to enhance the quality of medication prescribing in outpatient settings, potentially inappropriate prescribing remains common, particularly in unscheduled settings where patients can present with infectious and pain-related complaints. Two of the most commonly prescribed medication classes in outpatient settings with frequent rates of potentially inappropriate prescribing include antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). In the setting of persistent inappropriate prescribing, we sought to understand a diverse set of perspectives on the determinants of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics and NSAIDs in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Theory of Planned Behavior. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians, stakeholders, and Veterans from March 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 within the Veteran Affairs Health System in unscheduled outpatient settings at the Tennessee Valley Healthcare System. Stakeholders included clinical operations leadership and methodological experts. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and de-identified. Data coding and analysis were conducted by experienced qualitative methodologists adhering to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies guidelines. Analysis was conducted using an iterative inductive/deductive process. RESULTS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 66 participants: clinicians (N = 25), stakeholders (N = 24), and Veterans (N = 17). We identified six themes contributing to potentially inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics and NSAIDs: 1) Perceived versus actual Veterans expectations about prescribing; 2) the influence of a time-pressured clinical environment on prescribing stewardship; 3) Limited clinician knowledge, awareness, and willingness to use evidence-based care; 4) Prescriber uncertainties about the Veteran condition at the time of the clinical encounter; 5) Limited communication; and 6) Technology barriers of the electronic health record and patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: The diverse perspectives on prescribing underscore the need for interventions that recognize the detrimental impact of high workload on prescribing stewardship and the need to design interventions with the end-user in mind. This study revealed actionable themes that could be addressed to improve guideline concordant prescribing to enhance the quality of prescribing and to reduce patient harm.

The development and testing of a single-arm feasibility and acceptability study of a whole foods diet intervention for adults with prediabetes and their offspring.

BACKGROUND: Diet is considered a first-line treatment option for prediabetes, a condition that affects 96 million United States (U.S.) adults. Diet patterns that prioritize whole foods (e.g., Mediterranean) are currently recommended to treat prediabetes. However, no studies have tested whether a U.S.-style diet pattern that prioritizes whole foods can be used to treat prediabetes. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a whole foods diet for adults with prediabetes and their offspring prior to conducting a larger clinical trial. METHODS: A 2-week single-arm pre-post experimental controlled-feeding intervention of a 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans adapted whole foods diet (e.g., primarily focused on foods that have undergone limited processing or refinement) was conducted in adults (25-59 years) with prediabetes and their biological offspring (6-17 years). Families received 2 weeks of menus and grocery delivery and weekly counseling by a registered dietitian. Families were invited to attend an optional focus group session. Feasibility was based on having a ≥ 50% family completion rate with ≥ 80% completion of study outcomes. Measures included adult-child anthropometrics (weight [kg], body mass index [BMI] including BMI% and Z-scores for offspring, waist circumference [cm]) and child diet quality estimated using the 2015 Healthy Eating Index (HEI) from a single random food record. Wilcoxon signed rank was used to compare differences between baseline and 2-week anthropometrics measures and offspring total HEI scores. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis to understand factors attributed to diet adherence and acceptability. RESULTS: Eight families enrolled (n = 8 adults, n = 12 offspring), with 7 families completing the study (12% attrition) and completing 100% of study outcome measures. Adults experienced a median weight loss of - 1.0 kg from baseline to 2 weeks (79.5 kg to 78.5 kg). Offspring had a 24-point increase in total 2015 HEI scores (median difference 50 to 74). Focus group participants (n = 4 adults) reported being satisfied with the program and expressed a willingness to continue the diet despite identified barriers. CONCLUSIONS: A whole foods diet that provides dietary support was found to be feasible and acceptable for families at risk for T2D. Future studies are needed to test the effects of the diet on prediabetes outcomes, diet quality, and diet adherence in adults and families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05483972 at ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered July 25, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05483972?cond=prediabetes&term=whole%20foods%20&rank=1.

Using intervention mapping to design and implement a multicomponent intervention to improve antibiotic and NSAID prescribing.

Successfully changing prescribing behavior to reduce inappropriate antibiotic and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescriptions often requires combining components into a multicomponent intervention. However, multicomponent interventions often fail because of development and implementation complexity. To increase the likelihood of successfully changing prescribing behavior, we applied a systematic process to design and implement a multicomponent intervention. We used Intervention Mapping to create a roadmap for a multicomponent intervention in unscheduled outpatient care settings in the Veterans Health Administration. Intervention Mapping is a systematic process consisting of six steps that we grouped into three phases: (i) understand behavioral determinants and barriers to implementation, (ii) develop the intervention, and (iii) define evaluation plan and implementation strategies. A targeted literature review, combined with 25 prescriber and 25 stakeholder interviews, helped identify key behavioral determinants to inappropriate prescribing (e.g. perceived social pressure from patients to prescribe). We targeted three desired prescriber behaviors: (i) review guideline-concordant prescribing and patient outcomes, (ii) manage diagnostic and treatment uncertainty, and (iii) educate patients and caregivers. The intervention consisted of components for academic detailing, prescribing feedback, and alternative prescription order sets. Implementation strategies consisted of preparing clinical champions, conducting readiness assessments, and incentivizing use of the intervention. We chose a mixed-method study design with a commonly used evaluation framework to assess effectiveness and implementation outcomes in a subsequent trial. This study furthers knowledge about causes of inappropriate antibiotic and NSAID prescribing and demonstrates how theoretical, empirical, and practical information can be systematically applied to develop a multicomponent intervention to help address these causes.

Reducing adverse drug events from antibiotics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is a patient safety priority. Successfully changing prescribing behavior to reduce inappropriate prescriptions can require combining intervention components, each with different mechanisms for behavior change, into a multicomponent intervention. However, multicomponent interventions often fail because of development and implementation complexity. To increase the chance of successfully changing antibiotic and NSAID prescribing, the objective this study was to apply a systematic process to design and implement a multicomponent intervention. Three desired prescriber behaviors were targeted: (i) review guideline-concordant prescribing and patient outcomes, (ii) manage diagnostic and treatment uncertainty, and (iii) educate patients and caregivers. The designed intervention consisted of components for prescribing feedback, academic detailing, and alternative prescription order sets. Strategies to improve use of the intervention consisted of preparing clinical champions, conducting readiness assessments prior to study onset, and incentivizing use of the intervention. We chose a mixed-method study design with a commonly used evaluation framework to assess effectiveness and implementation outcomes of the multicomponent intervention in a subsequent trial.