Development of the Parental Experience with Care for Children with Serious Illnesses (PRECIOUS) quality of care measure.

BACKGROUND: Parent-reported experience measures are part of pediatric Quality of Care (QoC) assessments. However, existing measures were not developed for use across multiple healthcare settings or throughout the illness trajectory of seriously ill children. Formative work involving in-depth interviews with parents of children with serious illnesses generated 66 draft items describing key QoC processes. Our present aim is to develop a comprehensive parent-reported experience measure of QoC for children with serious illnesses and evaluate its content validity and feasibility. METHODS: For evaluating content validity, we conducted a three-round Delphi expert panel review with 24 multi-disciplinary experts. Next, we pre-tested the items and instructions with 12 parents via cognitive interviews to refine clarity and understandability. Finally, we pilot-tested the full measure with 30 parents using self-administered online surveys to finalize the structure and content. RESULTS: The Delphi expert panel review reached consensus on 68 items. Pre-testing with parents of seriously ill children led to consolidation of some items. Pilot-testing supported feasibility of the measure, resulting in a comprehensive measure comprising 56 process assessment items, categorized under ten subthemes and four themes: (1) Professional qualities of healthcare workers, (2) Supporting parent-caregivers, (3) Collaborative and holistic care, and (4) Efficient healthcare structures and standards. We named this measure the PaRental Experience with care for Children with serIOUS illnesses (PRECIOUS). CONCLUSIONS: PRECIOUS is the first comprehensive measure and has the potential to standardize assessment of QoC for seriously ill children from parental perspectives. PRECIOUS allows for QoC process evaluation across contexts (such as geographic location or care setting), different healthcare workers, and over the illness trajectory for children suffering from a range of serious illnesses.

PRECIOUS demonstrated satisfactory measurement properties for assessing the quality of care for children with serious illnesses.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the measurement properties of PaRental Experience with care for Children with serIOUS illnesses (PRECIOUS), a parent-reported measure of Quality of Care for seriously ill children across care settings and illness trajectories. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Parents self-administered baseline and 2-week follow-up surveys online. Exploratory Factor Analysis was used to determine PRECIOUS's factor structure and select items. Internal consistency was evaluated with Cronbach's α, test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficients, and convergent validity with Spearman's correlations between PRECIOUS scales and subscales of Measure of Processes of Care and Quality of Children's Palliative Care Instrument. RESULTS: Of 152 parents [108 (71%) mothers, 44 (29%) fathers] who completed the baseline survey, 123 (81%) completed follow-up. Exploratory Factor Analysis grouped PRECIOUS into five scales: collaborative and goal-concordant care (12 items), caregiver support and respectful care (15 items), access to financial and medical resources (five items), reducing caregiving stressors (nine items), and hospitalization-specific processes (four items). Root Mean Square Error of Approximation was 0.040 and Comparative Fit Index was 0.980. Cronbach's α ranged from 0.85 to 0.96. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.86. Significant correlations with Measure of Processes of Care and Quality of Children's Palliative Care Instrument confirmed convergent validity. The original 56-item tool was reduced to 45 items. CONCLUSION: PRECIOUS demonstrates satisfactory measurement properties for assessing Quality of Care for seriously ill children.

A qualitative exploration of parental perspectives on quality of care for children with serious illnesses.

Introduction: Being responsive to end-users is essential to good care. Limited in-depth exploration of parental perspectives on care received by children over the course of serious illness has hindered the development of process measures to evaluate quality of care. Our objective was to identify the key process indicators prioritized by parents in the care of seriously ill young children and develop a framework to guide assessment of quality of care. Methods: This qualitative study followed Charmaz's Constructivist Grounded Theory. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with parents of young children with serious illness in Singapore. Participants were sampled across various healthcare settings, children's ages, and illness categories. Theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis were used to generate initial, focused, and theoretical codes, which informed construction of a conceptual framework. Results: 31 parents participated from July 2021 to February 2022. Initial and focused coding generated 64 quality of care indicators describing key care practices, interactions, and procedures. Indicators were categorized under four themes: (1) efficient healthcare structures and standards, (2) professional qualities of healthcare workers, 3. supporting parent-caregivers, and 4. collaborative and holistic care. Theoretical coding led to the development of the "PaRental perspectives on qualIty of care for Children with sErious iLlnESSes (PRICELESS)" framework which summarizes elements contributing to the parental perception of quality of care. Discussion: The identified process indicators will facilitate the development of standardised parent-reported measures for assessing service quality and benchmarking among providers. The framework provides overall guidance for conceiving quality improvement initiatives.

Parent-Reported Experience Measures of Care for Children With Serious Illnesses: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to: 1) identify parent-reported experience measures (PaREMs) for parents of children with serious illnesses from peer-reviewed literature, 2) map the types of care experience being evaluated in PaREMs, 3) identify and describe steps followed in the measure development process, including where gaps lie and how PaREMs may be improved in future efforts, and 4) help service providers choose a PaREM suitable for their service delivery setting and strategy. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were systematically searched from PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus EBSCOhost databases until June 10, 2021, followed by a manual reference list search of highly relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION: Abstracts were screened, followed by a full-text review using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized data extraction tool was used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixteen PaREMs were identified. There were large variances in the development processes across measures, and most have been developed in high-income, English-speaking Western countries. Most only assess the quality of acute inpatient care. Few measures can be used by multiple service providers or chronic care, and many do not capture all relevant domains of the parent experience. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers should integrate PaREMs into their settings to track and improve the quality of care. Given the multidisciplinary nature of pediatric care and the often-unpredictable disease trajectories of seriously ill children, measures that are applicable to multiple providers and varying lengths of care are essential for standardized assessment of quality of care and coordination among providers. To improve future PaREM development, researchers should follow consistent and methodologically robust steps, ideally in more diverse sociocultural and health systems contexts. Future measures should widen their scope to be applicable over the disease trajectory and to multiple service providers in a child's network of care for a comprehensive evaluation of experience.

Financial difficulties and patient-reported outcomes among patients with advanced heart failure.

PURPOSE: Management of congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with high health care costs and financial difficulties for patients. We aimed to comprehensively assess the association between financial difficulties and patients' quality of life (QOL) (physical, emotional, social and spiritual), perceived health care quality, and perception of being a burden to the family among patients with CHF; and to assess whether perceived control over stress moderated these associations. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 250 patients using the baseline data of the Singapore Cohort of Patients with Advanced Heart Failure (SCOPAH). Patients had class 3 or 4 CHF symptoms based on the New York Heart Association and were recruited between July 2017 and August 2019. We used a 3-item questionnaire to measure financial difficulties among patients. We used multivariable linear/ordered logistic regressions to test associations between financial difficulties and each dependent variable. RESULTS: 41% of participants reported financial difficulties. A higher financial difficulties score (range: 0-6, higher score indicating greater difficulty) was associated with lower QOL (emotional, social, and spiritual) and perceived health care coordination, and a higher likelihood of patients perceiving themselves to being a burden to family (all p < 0.05) CONCLUSION: Patients with financial difficulties are vulnerable to poor outcomes. Heart failure clinics should directly assess patients' financial difficulties to help guide treatment-related discussions and to identify patients vulnerable to poor QOL.

A randomized controlled trial testing the effects of a positive front-of-pack label with or without a physical activity equivalent label on food purchases.

BACKGROUND: Positive front-of-pack (FOP) labels, including Singapore's Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS), target a subset of healthier products whose consumption is to be encouraged. However, this may inadvertently lead to excess caloric intake, which could be addressed by including an additional label identifying calories per serving. We test this hypothesis by adding a Physical Activity Equivalent (PAE) label, an indicator of calorie content, to all products available in an on-line grocery store. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial using a 3 arm within-subject crossover design in adult Singapore residents recruited online. Participants shopped once in each condition in an experimental online grocery store in random order: 1) no FOP label (Control); 2) Select products displaying HCS labels (HCS-only); 3) Condition 2 with additional information displaying PAEs per serving on every product (HCS+PAE). 117 participants were recruited and data from 317 shops were analyzed. We used first-differenced regressions to assess the impact of the conditions on calories per serving (primary) and on other measures of diet quality. RESULTS: The HCS-only condition led to a statistically significant five-percentage point increase in the proportion of HCS products purchased (95% CI, 1%: 9%). However, neither the HCS-only (3.45; 95% CI, -12.52: 19.43) nor HCS + PAE (8.14; 95% CI, -5.25: 21.54) condition led to a change in the number of calories per serving purchased or changes in other measures of diet quality. CONCLUSIONS: Positive labels, like the HCS, are likely to increase purchases of labelled products. However, these changes may not lead to improvements in diet quality or calorie intake. Combining positive labels with additional PAE information does not appear to address this concern.

Randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of within versus across-category front-of-package lower-calorie labelling on food demand.

BACKGROUND: Several front-of-pack (FOP) labels identify healthier options by comparing foods within product categories. Alternative approaches label healthier options by comparing across categories. Which approach is superior remains unknown. The objective of this study was to test the effect of a within-category versus across-category FOP lower calorie label on 1) the percentage of labeled products purchased, 2) several measures of calories purchased (total, per dollar and per serving), and 3) total spending. We also tested the moderating effects of hunger and mood on purchasing patterns. METHODS: Using an online grocery store, we conducted a 3 × 3 crossover trial involving actual purchases with 146 participants randomly exposed to: 1) no labeling control; 2) within-category lower calorie labels, and; 3) across-category lower calorie labels. We labeled the 20% of products with the lowest calories per serving within or across categories. Purchases were compared using a fixed effects regression on first-differenced outcomes. RESULTS: Relative to the control condition, there was a 3 percentage point increase (p = 0.01) in labelled products purchased in the within-category arm and a non-significant decrease of 1 percentage point (p = 0.711) in the across-category arm. There was no significant difference in the proportion of labeled products purchased between the two labelling conditions. Neither strategy resulted in reductions in any measure of calories purchased or in total spending. When limited to beverages, there was a 398 cal reduction (p = 0.01) in the within-category arm and a 438 cal reduction (p < 0.01) in the across-category arm versus the control. Mood and hunger did not modify the effects for either strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence that both labelling strategies have the potential to influence food purchasing patterns. However, we cannot definitely state that one labelling approach is superior or even that an increase in the proportion of labelled products purchased will lead to a reduction in calories purchased. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials, RCT ID: AEARCTR-0002325; Prospectively Registered October 06, 2017. In compliance with ICMJE policy, the trial was also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, RCT ID: [NCT04165447]. Retrospectively Registered 11 November 2019.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of the Multiple Traffic Light and Nutri-Score Front of Package Nutrition Labels.

The objective of this trial was to test two promising front-of-pack nutrition labels, 1) the United Kingdom's Multiple Traffic Lights (MTL) label and 2) France's Nutri-Score (NS), relative to a no-label control. We hypothesized that both labels would improve diet quality but NS would be more effective due to its greater simplicity. We tested this hypothesis via an online grocery store using a 3 × 3 crossover (within-person) design with 154 participants. Outcomes assessed via within person regression models include a modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (AHEI)-2010 (primary), average Nutri-Score, calories purchased, and singular measures of diet quality of purchase orders. Results show that both labels significantly improve modified AHEI scores relative to Control but neither is statistically superior using this measure. NS performed statistically better than MTL and Control based on average Nutri-Score, yet, unlike MTL it did not statistically reduce calories or sugar from beverages. This suggest that NS may be preferred if the goal is to improve overall diet quality but, because calories are clearly displayed on the label, MTL may perform better if the goal is to reduce total energy intake.

Pilot randomized controlled trial testing the influence of front-of-pack sugar warning labels on food demand.

BACKGROUND: Front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition warning labels to identify potentially harmful foods/beverages have recently been considered in Singapore. The objective of this study was to pilot test two promising FOP warning labels intended to reduce purchases of products high in sugar to determine whether a full scale trial testing one or both these labels using actual purchases is warranted. METHODS: Five hundred twelve participants ≥21 years old and residing in Singapore completed all study elements online via the NUSMart Online Grocery Store study website. The study was designed as a Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) where consumers were randomized and asked to hypothetically shop in one of three versions of an online grocery store; 1) no FOP label (control), 2) a graphical high-in-sugar label shaped like a stop sign, or 3) a text-based warning label. The proportion of labelled products purchased (primary outcome) and all secondary measures of diet quality were calculated using participants' orders. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to compare purchasing behavior across the three study arms. RESULTS: The proportion of high-in-sugar products selected (i.e., those targeted for labelling) was largest in the no label control arm at 20%. The proportion was a non-statistically significant 2 percentage points lower (P = 0.146) for the high-in-sugar stop-sign label arm and 4 percentage points lower (P < 0.05) in the warning label with deterrent text arm. We could not reject the hypothesis of equal effectiveness of the two warning labels (P = 0.231). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the two health warning labels have potential to reduce demand for high-in-sugar products in Singapore. Future studies should test the influence of these labels using actual purchases in efforts to identify whether either labelling strategy should be considered for adoption in the local setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The American Economic Association's registry for randomized controlled trials; AEARCTR-0003800 . Registered 18 January 2019.