Engaging the consumer in disinvestment in public healthcare: Concerns, perspectives and attitudes of older adults.

RATIONALE: Low-value care in public health can be addressed via disinvestment with the support of disinvestment research generated evidence. Consumers' views of disinvestment have rarely been explored despite the potential effects of this process on the care they will receive and the importance of consumer participation in decision-making in public healthcare. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand consumer concerns, perceptions and attitudes towards disinvestment processes, with the goal of providing recommendations to health service researchers and managers to more effectively engage consumers in shared decision-making in public healthcare. METHOD: We conducted semistructured interviews using four scenarios describing the principles of disinvestment, how and why it could be undertaken, and a fifth scenario that described a real-life application of these principles. These scenarios were presented to participants in a written word document or a digital story during semistructured interviews. Participants were 18 community-dwelling older adults who were recruited via convenience sampling. Questions were addressed to the participants regarding their feelings and concerns towards disinvestment, their participation as consumers in disinvestment processes, as well as their preference for communicating information about disinvestment to patients and families. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged around the negative perception of disinvestment and positive perception of research. Participants were concerned that the removal of a clinical activity was mainly the result of financial constraints in hospital systems. At times, participants indicated that disinvestment and its justifications were not easily understood. Participants expressed a need for consumer advocacy not always through themselves, but via others with more expertize; a single consumer is insufficient in representing the broader consumer perspective. Participants stressed the importance of transparency in relation to research evidence and decision-making outcomes. Face-to-face dissemination of information by expert staff was preferred, which could be supplemented with clear and concise written materials. CONCLUSION: Consumers' main perception of disinvestment processes was that the removal of a clinical care activity depended on financial imperatives from hospital administration and political agendas. This tended to cause suspicion about reasons behind the removal of care, which overshadowed comprehension of the ineffective/inconclusive evidence that were key to disinvestment.

Digital storytelling to facilitate consumer engagement in healthcare research.

ISSUES ADDRESSED: Consumer engagement in healthcare research presents with challenges, one of which is ensuring that the consumers have comprehended the often complex concepts in scientific research. This study aimed to compare how well older adult consumers understood video-based versus written and verbal description approaches to provision of information. METHODS: Twenty adults in the community aged 60 years and older were recruited for this study; half were randomised to receive the information via a digital story, and the other half received the same information from a written brief. Both mediums were presented via video teleconferencing. An interviewer was present to ask questions and address queries. RESULTS: Participants who viewed the digital story requested for clarifications less frequently compared to those who received the written brief. Difficulty in understanding the information rose with complexity, but providing concrete examples aided comprehension of the information. CONCLUSIONS: Complex concepts benefit from the provision of concrete examples to facilitate understanding. Video-based approaches to provision of information are acceptable forms of participant engagement in research and require less human resources to successfully convey key information and facilitate understanding of the information. Research procedures that employ large amounts of data collection and/or asynchronous methods should consider the use of video-based approaches, such as digital stories, to increase cost-effectiveness.

Disinvestment in the presence of uncertainty: Description of a novel, multi-group, disinvestment trial design and protocol for an application to reduce or cease use of mobilisation alarms for preventing falls in hospitals.

Disinvestment is the removal or reduction of previously provided practices or services, and has typically been undertaken where a practice or service has been clearly shown to be ineffective, inefficient and/or harmful. However, practices and services that have uncertain evidence of effectiveness, efficiency and safety can also be considered as candidates for disinvestment. Disinvestment from these practices and services is risky as they may yet prove to be beneficial if further evidence becomes available. A novel research approach has previously been described for this situation, allowing disinvestment to take place while simultaneously generating evidence previously missing from consideration. In this paper, we describe how this approach can be expanded to situations where three or more conditions are of relevance, and describe the protocol for a trial examining the reduction and elimination of use of mobilisation alarms on hospital wards to prevent patient falls. Our approach utilises a 3-group, concurrent, non-inferiority, stepped wedge, randomised design with an embedded parallel, cluster randomised design. Eighteen hospital wards with high rates of alarm use (≥3%) will be paired within their health service and randomly allocated to a calendar month when they will transition to a "Reduced" (<3%) or "Eliminated" (0%) mobilisation alarm condition. Dynamic randomisation will be used to determine which ward in each pair will be allocated to either the reduced or eliminated condition to promote equivalence between wards for the embedded parallel, cluster randomised component of the design. A project governance committee will set non-inferiority margins. The primary outcome will be rates of falls. Secondary clinical, process, safety, and economic outcomes will be collected and a concurrent economic evaluation undertaken.