"It's hard to say anything definitive about what severity really is": lay conceptualisations of severity in a healthcare context.

BACKGROUND: Demand for healthcare outweighs available resources, making priority setting a critical issue. 'Severity' is a priority-setting criterion in many healthcare systems, including in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. However, there is a lack of consensus on what severity means in a healthcare context, both in the academic literature and in policy. Further, while public preference elicitation studies demonstrate support for severity as a relevant concern in priority setting, there is a paucity of research on what severity is taken to mean for the public. The purpose of this study is to explore how severity is conceptualised by members of the general public. METHODS: Semi-structured group interviews were conducted from February to July 2021 with members of the Norwegian adult public (n = 59). These were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis, incorporating inductive and deductive elements. RESULTS: Through the analysis we arrived at three interrelated main themes. Severity as subjective experience included perceptions of severity as inherently subjective and personal. Emphasis was on the individual's unique insight into their illness, and there was a concern that the assessment of severity should be fair for the individual. The second theme, Severity as objective fact, included perceptions of severity as something determined by objective criteria, so that a severe condition is equally severe for any person. Here, there was a concern for determining severity fairly within and across patient groups. The third theme, Severity as situation dependent, included perceptions of severity centered on second-order effects of illness. These included effects on the individual, such as their ability to work and enjoy their hobbies, effects on those surrounding the patient, such as next of kin, and effects at a societal level, such as production loss. We also identified a concern for determining severity fairly at a societal level. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that severity is a polyvalent notion with different meanings attached to it. There seems to be a dissonance between lay conceptualisations of severity and policy operationalisations of the term, which may lead to miscommunications between members of the public and policymakers.

Charting public views on the meaning of illness severity.

BACKGROUND: Illness severity is a central principle in multiple priority-setting frameworks, yet there is a paucity of research on public views regarding the meaning of illness severity. This study builds on the findings of a Q methodology study with members of the public that identified four general viewpoints on the meaning of illness severity. Here, we investigate the support for those viewpoints among the Norwegian population. METHODS: Following piloting, the online survey was distributed to a broadly representative sample of the population (March to April 2023). The viewpoints from the earlier Q study were converted into vignettes: Lifespan, Subjective, Objective, and Functioning and Quality of Life (FQoL). The main task in the survey comprised ranking the vignettes and scoring them on a 0-10 visual analogue scale. We describe vignette alignment (from weak to strong) based on four categorisations (C1 to C4). C1 placed all respondents on their top scored vignette(s); C2 required a score of ≥7; C3 was designed to resolve ties; and C4 (which describes vignette membership) required a score of ≥7, a gap of two between vignettes scored ≥7, and did not allow ties. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1174 individuals; those who completed in ≤3.5 min were excluded. Of the final sample (n = 1094), 98.1% scored at least one vignette ≥7. In C1, 40.2% were aligned with Lifespan, 32.4% with FQoL, 28.9% with Objective, and 16.3% with Subjective. Using the C4 criteria, 55.4% did not have vignette membership, 13.6% had membership with Lifespan, 13.1% with Objective, 11.4% with FQoL, and 6.5% with Subjective. CONCLUSIONS: Severity is an ambiguous term among members of the public. Decisionmakers ought to bear this plurality of meanings in mind, and perhaps reconsider whether using a term as multifaceted as 'severity' is helpful in formulating precise and transparent priority-setting criteria.

A severely fragmented concept: Uncovering citizens' subjective accounts of severity of illness.

Universal healthcare is constrained by national governments' finite health resources. This gives rise to complex priority-setting dilemmas. In several universal healthcare systems, the notion of severity (Norwegian: 'alvorlighet') is a key consideration in priority setting, such that treatments for 'severe' illness may be prioritised even when evidence suggests it would not be as cost-effective as treatment options for other conditions. However, severity is a poorly-defined concept, and there is no consensus on what severity means in the context of healthcare provision - whether viewed from public, academic, or professional perspectives. Though several public preference-elicitation studies demonstrate that severity is considered relevant in healthcare resource distribution, there is a paucity of research on public perceptions on the actual meaning of severity. We conducted a Q-methodology study between February 2021 and March 2022 to investigate views on severity amongst general public participants in Norway. Group interviews (n = 59) were conducted to gather statements for the Q-sort ranking exercises (n = 34). Data were analysed using by-person factor analysis to identify patterns in the statement rankings. We present a rich picture of perspectives on the term 'severity', and identify four different, partly conflicting, views on severity in the Norwegian population, with few areas of consensus. We argue that policymakers ought to be made aware of these differing perspectives on severity, and that there is need for further research on the prevalence of these views and on how they are distributed within populations.

Breaking the cycle of recurrent fracture: implementing the first fracture liaison service (FLS) in British Columbia, Canada.

Fractures occurring with very little trauma are often caused by osteoporosis and can lead to disability. This study demonstrates that a coordinator working with an orthopaedic team can significantly increase the number of individuals receiving appropriate treatments during their after-fracture care to prevent future fractures from occurring. PURPOSE: Well-implemented Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) programs increase appropriate investigation and treatment for osteoporosis after low trauma fracture. This research evaluates the effectiveness of the first FLS program implemented in British Columbia (BC), Canada. METHODS: A controlled before-and-after study was conducted. The intervention was an FLS program implemented at an orthopaedic outpatient clinic at Peace Arch Hospital in BC. Eligible patients were those over the age of 50 years with a low trauma fracture of the hip, pelvis, vertebra, wrist or humerus. A nurse practitioner FLS coordinator identified, investigated and initiated treatment in patients based on their future fracture risk. The primary outcome was the percentage of all patients at high-risk to refracture, who achieved at least one of the following outcomes: (1) started on osteoporosis medication, (2) referred to an osteoporosis consultant or (3) assessed for treatment change if they were already on osteoporosis medication at the time of the fracture. Secondary outcomes included the rate of bone density testing, referral to fall prevention programs and change in health-related quality of life over 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients participated in the study (65 in the usual care group, 130 in the FLS group). Average age was 70.5 years (standard deviation 11.5), and 84% of participants were female. In the FLS group, 77.8% of high-risk patients achieved the primary outcome compared with 22.9% in the usual care group. CONCLUSION: In BC, the implementation of an FLS program improved investigation and treatment for osteoporosis after low trauma fracture.

Delivery of Peer Support Through a Self-Management mHealth Intervention (Healing Circles) in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of hospitalization and death around the world. The prevalence of CVD is increasing and, therefore, development and investigation of effective programs to help people better self-manage their CVD and prevent secondary complications are needed. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we report on a protocol to evaluate Healing Circles-an evidence-based and patient-informed peer support mobile health program designed to facilitate self-management and support patients in their recovery from and management of CVD. We hypothesize that individuals with CVD who use Healing Circles will experience greater improvements to their self-management ability than individuals receiving usual care. METHODS: In this single-blinded (assessor) randomized controlled trial, 250 community-living individuals with CVD will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to either Healing Circles or Usual Care. The primary outcome of self-management will be measured using the Health Education Impact Questionnaire version 3.0. Secondary outcomes include self-efficacy with chronic disease management, health-related quality of life, health resource use and costs, and electronic health literacy. Measurements will be taken at the baseline and every 6 months for 24 months. RESULTS: The study started recruitment in September 2017. Individuals are currently being recruited for participation, and existing participants are currently on follow-up. Measurements will be taken every 6 months until the study end, which is anticipated in December 2019. CONCLUSIONS: Healing Circles is a novel program aimed toward improving self-management through peer support. Given our real-world study design, our findings will be readily translatable into practice. If the results support our hypothesis, it will indicate that Healing Circles is an effective intervention for improving self-management and reducing health care use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03159325; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03159325 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/74DvxVKUd). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/12322.

The Use of Text Messaging to Improve the Hospital-to-Community Transition in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients (Txt2Prevent): Intervention Development and Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI), is one of the leading causes for hospitalization, with AMI 30-day readmission rates around 20%. Supporting patient information needs and increasing adherence to recommended self-management behaviors during transition from hospital to home has the potential to improve patient outcomes. Text messages have been effective in other interventions and may be suitable to provide support to patients during this transition period. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to pilot test a text messaging intervention program (Txt2Prevent) that supports acute coronary syndrome patients for 60 days postdischarge. The primary objective is to compare self-management, as measured by the Health Education Impact Questionnaire, between patients receiving only usual care versus those who receive usual care plus the Txt2Prevent intervention. The secondary objectives are to compare medication adherence, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, health care resource use (and associated costs), all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) readmission, and all-cause and CVD mortality rates between the 2 groups. The third objective is to assess acceptability of the text messaging intervention and feasibility of the study protocol. METHODS: This is a randomized controlled trial with blinding of outcome assessors. The Txt2Prevent program includes automated text messages to patients about standard follow-up care, general self-management, and healthy living. The content of the text messages was informed by and developed based on interviews with patients, discharge materials, theoretical domains of behavior, and a clinical advisory group composed of patients, clinicians, and researchers. We will recruit 76 consecutive cardiac in-patients with acute coronary syndrome who are treated with either medical management or percutaneous coronary intervention from a hospital in Vancouver, Canada. RESULTS: Assessments at baseline will include measures for demographic information, self-management, health-related quality of life, and self-efficacy. Assessments at follow-up will include medication adherence, readmissions, health care resource use, and mortality in addition to the reassessment of baseline measures. Baseline assessments are done in-person while follow-up assessments are completed through a combination of mailed packages and phone calls. Semistructured interviews with participants will also be performed to better understand participant experiences managing their condition and with the text messages. CONCLUSIONS: This study will determine preliminary efficacy, feasibility, and acceptability of the Txt2Prevent program to support acute coronary syndrome patients in the transition to home following hospital discharge. The results of this study will be used to inform a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336919; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02336919 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qMjEqo6O).

"When I saw walking I just kind of took it as wheeling": interpretations of mobility-related items in generic, preference-based health state instruments in the context of spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: In health economic analyses, health states are typically valued using instruments with few items per dimension. Due to the generic (and often reductionist) nature of such instruments, certain groups of respondents may experience challenges in describing their health state. This study is concerned with generic, preference-based health state instruments that provide information for decisions about the allocation of resources in health care. Unlike physical measurement instruments, preference-based health state instruments provide health state values that are dependent on how respondents interpret the items. This study investigates how individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) interpret mobility-related items contained within six preference-based health state instruments. METHODS: Secondary analysis of focus group transcripts originally collected in Vancouver, Canada, explored individuals' perceptions and interpretations of mobility-related items contained within the 15D, Assessment of Quality of Life 8-dimension (AQoL-8D), EQ-5D-5L, Health Utilities Index (HUI), Quality of Well-Being Scale Self-Administered (QWB-SA), and the 36-item Short Form health survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Ritchie and Spencer's 'Framework Approach' was used to perform thematic analysis that focused on participants' comments concerning the mobility-related items only. RESULTS: Fifteen individuals participated in three focus groups (five per focus group). Four themes emerged: wording of mobility (e.g., 'getting around' vs 'walking'), reference to aids and appliances, lack of suitable response options, and reframing of items (e.g., replacing 'walking' with 'wheeling'). These themes reflected item features that respondents perceived as relevant in enabling them to describe their mobility, and response strategies that respondents could use when faced with inaccessible items. CONCLUSION: Investigating perceptions to mobility-related items within the context of SCI highlights substantial variation in item interpretation across six preference-based health state instruments. Studying respondents' interpretations of items can help to understand discrepancies in the health state descriptions and values obtained from different instruments. This line of research warrants closer attention in the health economics and quality of life literature.

A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of three physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: the BEEP trial protocol (ISRCTN: 93634563).

BACKGROUND: Exercise is consistently recommended for older adults with knee pain related to osteoarthritis. However, the effects from exercise are typically small and short-term, likely linked to insufficient individualisation of the exercise programme and limited attention to supporting exercise adherence over time. The BEEP randomised trial aims to improve patients' short and long-term outcomes from exercise. It will test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two physiotherapy-led exercise interventions (Individually Tailored Exercise and Targeted Exercise Adherence) to improve the individual tailoring of, and adherence to exercise, compared with usual physiotherapy care. METHODS/DESIGN: Based on the learning from a pilot study (ISRCTN 23294263), the BEEP trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with embedded longitudinal qualitative interviews. 500 adults in primary care, aged 45 years and over with knee pain will be randomised to 1 of 3 treatment groups delivered by fully trained physiotherapists in up to 6 NHS services. These are: Usual Physiotherapy Care (control group consisting of up to 4 treatment sessions of advice and exercise), Individually Tailored Exercise (an individualised, supervised and progressed lower-limb exercise programme) or Targeted Exercise Adherence (supporting patients to adhere to exercise and to engage in general physical activity over the longer-term). The primary outcomes are pain and function as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes are also included. Outcomes are measured at 3, 6 (primary outcome time-point), 9, 18 and 36 months. Data on adverse events will also be collected. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a subsample of 30 participants (10 from each treatment group) will be undertaken at two time-points (end of treatment and 12 to 18 months later) and analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of older adults with knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis in primary care. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners, general practitioners and physiotherapy service providers and it will inform future education of healthcare practitioners. It may also serve to delay or prevent some individuals from becoming surgical candidates. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN: ISRCTN93634563.