Measuring Patient-Reported Use and Outcomes From Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies: Development of the Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey.

Background: Assessing the use and effectiveness of complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies via survey can be complicated given CIH therapies are used in various locations and formats, the dosing required to have an effect is unclear, the potential health and well-being outcomes are many, and describing CIH therapies can be challenging. Few surveys assessing CIH therapy use and effectiveness exist, and none sufficiently reflect these complexities. Objective: In a large-scale Veterans Health Administration (VA) quality improvement effort, we developed the "Complementary and Integrative Health Therapy Patient Experience Survey", a longitudinal, electronic patient self-administered survey to comprehensively assess CIH therapy use and outcomes. Methods: We obtained guidance from the literature, subject matter experts, and Veteran patients who used CIH therapies in designing the survey. As a validity check, we completed cognitive testing and interviews with those patients. We conducted the survey (March 2021-April 2023), inviting 15,608 Veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pain with a recent CIH appointment or referral identified in VA electronic medical records (EMR) to participate. As a second validity check, we compared VA EMR data and patient self-reports of CIH therapy utilization a month after survey initiation and again at survey conclusion. Results: The 64-item, electronic survey assesses CIH dosing (amount and timing), delivery format and location, provider location, and payor. It also assesses 7 patient-reported outcomes (pain, global mental health, global physical health, depression, quality of life, stress, and meaning/purpose in life), and 3 potential mediators (perceived health competency, healthcare engagement, and self-efficacy for managing diseases). The survey took 17 minutes on average to complete and had a baseline response rate of 45.3%. We found high degrees of concordance between self-reported and EMR data for all therapies except meditation. Conclusions: Validly assessing patient-reported CIH therapy use and outcomes is complex, but possible.

Expectations and experiences with physician care among patients receiving post-acute care in US skilled nursing facilities.

BACKGROUND: In the US, post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) is common and outcomes vary greatly across facilities. Little is known about the expectations of patients and their caregivers about physician care during the hospital to SNF transition. Our objectives were to (1) describe the experiences and expectations of patients and their caregivers with SNF physicians in SNFs, and (2) identify patterns that differed between patients with vs. without cognitive impairment. METHODS: This qualitative study used grounded theory approach to analyze data collected from semi-structured interviews at five SNFs in January-August 2018. Patients admitted for short-term SNF care 5-10 days prior were eligible to participate. Thematic analysis was performed to detect recurrent themes with a focus on modifiable aspects of physician care. Analysis was stratified by patient cognitive impairment (measured by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at the time of the interview). RESULTS: Fifty patients and six caregivers were interviewed. Major themes were: (1) patients had poor awareness of the physician in charge of their care; (2) they were dissatisfied with the frequency of interaction with the physician; and (3) participants valued the perception of receiving individualized care from the physician. Less cognitively impaired patients were more concerned about limited interactions with the physicians and were more likely to report attempts to seek out the physician. CONCLUSION: Patient and caregiver expectations of SNF physicians were not well aligned with their experiences. SNFs aiming to improve satisfaction with care may focus efforts in this area, such as facilitating frequent communication between physicians, patients and caregivers.

Insights Into Veterans' Perspectives on a Peer Support Program for Glycemic Management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the mentor-mentee relationship in veterans with type 2 diabetes and gain insight into successful pairings. METHODS: Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted as part of a peer mentoring randomized controlled trial to understand participants' experiences, their relationship with their partner, and how the intervention affected self-care behaviors. Purposive sampling was done to ensure adequate representation of mentees who made large strides in reaching their glycemic targets, those who made marginal improvements toward their glycemic goals, and those who got worse. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for salient themes. RESULTS: The intervention was well received, with most participants describing it as valuable. Participants perceived the intervention to have a number of benefits, including accessible support, enhanced self-confidence, increased accountability, better self-efficacy, improved glycemic management, and a fulfilled sense of altruism. Participants did encounter barriers, including logistical, interpersonal, and individual obstacles. The more successful mentees tended to be more effusive in their description of their mentors, endorsed a stronger sense of connection to their mentor, described a more structured interaction with their mentor, and tended to be more complimentary of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Large peer support programs are appealing and well received. These programs can be optimized by selecting naturally inclined mentors, providing additional training to introduce more structure into mentorship interactions, and targeting mentees who are not struggling with overwhelming comorbidities.

The Role of the Physician in Patient Perceptions of Barriers to Primary Adherence With Acne Medications.

Importance: Primary nonadherence with acne medications is high but commonly underreported to prescribing physicians. Objectives: To describe patient experiences with primary nonadherence to medications for acne and to identify physician-level factors that may improve adherence in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative analysis was conducted from structured interviews with patients reporting nonadherence with acne medications at a large academic health system in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, area. Three hundred eighty-five patients from 4 dermatology practices in the Philadelphia area were screened for primary nonadherence with a newly prescribed acne medication. Twenty-six patients participated in structured interviews conducted between November 30, 2016, and January 31, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic analysis of the transcripts was performed to detect recurrent themes and divergent ideas with a focus on modifiable physician-level factors that might improve primary adherence to medications for acne. Results: Participants (19 [73%] women, 6 [23%] aged <26 years, 15 [58%] aged 26-40 years, and 5 [19%] aged >40 years) reported cost as the major barrier to initiating therapy. Despite anticipating this barrier, they rarely brought up costs with physicians during the initial visit and generally did not expect their physician to be knowledgeable in this area. Although patients experienced inconvenience and frustration when unable to fill their prescriptions, this experience did not appear to negatively affect their satisfaction with the prescribing physician. Nevertheless, warning patients that the preferred medication may be expensive, having a plan of action if patients were unable to fill the prescription, and securing the patient's commitment to the plan were described as actions that the physicians could take to improve primary adherence. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician-level interventions to improve primary adherence to medications for acne may have an impact on nonadherence with costly medications, although they may not affect patient satisfaction with the prescribing physician.