Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice.

Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.

Antecedentes: La incorporación de la toma de decisiones compartida (TDC) es una parte central del empoderamiento del paciente, ya que facilita una mayor activación, ganar control sobre la atención que recibe y desarrollar habilidades para resolver sus problemas de salud. A pesar de estos beneficios, todavía existen dificultades para implementar la TDC entre los profesionales sanitarios debido a factores internos de los propios profesionales y externos, relacionados con el contexto y los sistemas sanitarios. Objetivo: Explorar en el foro de una comunidad virtual de práctica (CVdP) las percepciones de los profesionales de atención primaria (PAP) sobre el modelo de TDC en función de sus ideas preconcebidas y su experiencia en la práctica clínica. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis de marco desde un abordaje cualitativo de las intervenciones hechas por los PAP en el foro de una CVdP. Esta CVdP se implementó dentro de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado por grupos desarrollado en el proyecto e-MPODERA. Resultados: Los aspectos más importantes relacionados con la TDC desde la perspectiva de los PAP incluyeron: explorar los valores, preferencias y expectativas de los pacientes, proporcionarles información actualizada y basada en la evidencia, y comprobar su comprensión. En el análisis posterior, tres categorías emergieron como los temas más relevantes: determinantes de la implementación del TDC, falta de consistencia y dilemas, y beneficios de la escucha activa de los PAP, motivación y expectativas positivas de la TDC. Discusión: En nuestro análisis inicial, examinamos las conexiones entre las categorías del modelo de TDC y su aplicación en el contexto de atención primaria. Las categorías relacionadas con el modelo reflejan la comprensión teórica de los profesionales, mientras que las relativas a las percepciones de su aplicación y uso muestran ciertas discrepancias. Estas discrepancias podrían indicar una falta de comprensión del modelo y de sus implicaciones en el mundo real o un compromiso insuficiente por parte de los profesionales o de la organización para garantizar su aplicación efectiva. Conclusión: Una formación específica que aborde los conocimientos, las actitudes y la práctica puede resolver los hallazgos mencionados.

Evaluation of SINERGIAPS, an intervention to improve patient safety in primary healthcare centers in Spain based on patients' perceptions and experiences: a protocol for a hybrid type I randomized clinical trial.

Background: Adverse events in the primary care setting result in a direct cost equivalent to at least 2.5% of total healthcare spending. Across OECD countries, they lead to more than seven million avoidable hospital admissions annually. In this manuscript, we describe the protocol of a trial aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of SinergiAPS (a patient-centered audit and feedback intervention) in reducing avoidable hospital admission and explore the factors that may affect its implementation. Methods: We will conduct a 24-month, parallel, open-label, multicenter, pragmatic, hybrid type 1 randomized clinical trial. 118 primary healthcare centers with wide geographical distribution in Spain will be randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to two groups. The intervention group will receive two audits (baseline and intermediate at 12 months) based on information collected through the administration of the PREOS-PC questionnaire (a measure of patient-reported patient safety) to a convenience sample of 100 patients per center. The intervention group will receive reports on the results of both audits, along with educational resources aimed at facilitating the design and implementation of safety improvement plans. The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome will be the rate of avoidable hospitalizations (administrative data). Secondary outcomes: patient-reported patient safety experiences and outcomes (PREOS-PC questionnaire); patient safety culture as perceived by professionals (MOSPSC questionnaire); adverse events reported by healthcare professionals (ad hoc questionnaire); the number of safety improvement actions which the re has implemented (ad hoc questionnaire). Outcome data will be collected at baseline and 24 months follow-up. For the evaluation of the implementation of the SinergiAPS intervention, we will draw on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We will collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data (30 individual interviews, implementation logbooks; questionnaires for professionals from intervention centers, and level of use of the SinergiAPS web tool). Discussion: This study will expand the scarce body of evidence existing regarding the effects and implementation of interventions aimed at promoting patient and family engagement in primary healthcare, specifically for enhancing patient safety. The study has the potential to produce an impact on clinical practice, healthcare systems, and population health.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05958108?term=sinergiAPS&rank=1 (NCT05958108).

Exploring value creation in a virtual community of practice: a framework analysis for knowledge and skills development among primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals traditional education reflects constraints to face the complex needs of people with chronic diseases in primary care settings. Since more innovative and practical solutions are required, Virtual Community of Practices (vCoP) seem to better respond to learning updates, improving professional and organizational knowledge. However, little is known about the value created in vCoPs as social learning environments. The objective of this project was to explore the value creation process of a gamified vCoP ("e-mpodera vCoP") aimed at improving the knowledge and attitudes of primary healthcare professionals (PCPs) (nurses and general practitioners) to the empowerment of people with chronic conditions. METHODS: A framework analysis assessed the value creation process using a mixed methods approach. The framework provided awareness about knowledge and usefulness in a learning community through five cycles: (1) immediate value, (2) potential value, (3) applied value, (4) realized value, and (5) reframing value. Quantitative data included vCoP analytics such as logins, contributions, points, badges, and performance metrics. Qualitative data consisted of PCPs' forum contributions from Madrid, Catalonia, and Canary Islands over 14 months. RESULTS: A total of 185 PCPs had access to the e-mpodera vCoPs. The vCoP showed the dynamic participation of 146 PCPs, along 63 content activities posted, including a total of 3,571 contributions (including text, images, links to webpages, and other files). Regarding the value creation process, the e-mpodera vCoP seems to encompass a broad spectrum of value cycles, with indicators mostly related to cycle 1 (immediate value - activities and interactions) and cycle 2 (potential value - knowledge capital); and to a lesser extent for cycle 3 (applied value - changes in practice) and for cycle 4 (realized value - performance improvement). The presence of indicators related to cycle 5 (reframing value), was minimal, due to few individual redefinitions of success. CONCLUSION: To reach a wider range of value possibilities, a combination of learning objectives, competence framework, challenged-based gamified platform, and pathway model of skill development seems crucial. However, additional research is required to gain clearer insights into organizational values, professionals' lifelong educational needs in healthcare, and the long-term sustainability of performance improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781. Registered on 02/05/2016.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Heart Failure to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.

COMPAR-EU Recommendations on Self-Management Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) offer a promising approach to actively engage patients in the management of their chronic diseases. Within the scope of the COMPAR-EU project, our goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilisation and implementation of SMIs in the care of adult individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A multidisciplinary panel of experts, utilising a core outcome set (COS), identified critical outcomes and established effect thresholds for each outcome. The panel formulated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, a transparent and rigorous framework for developing and presenting the best available evidence for the formulation of recommendations. All recommendations are based on systematic reviews (SR) of the effects and of values and preferences, a contextual analysis, and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The COMPAR-EU panel is in favour of using SMIs rather than usual care (UC) alone (conditional, very low certainty of the evidence). Furthermore, the panel specifically is in favour of using ten selected SMIs, rather than UC alone (conditional, low certainty of the evidence), mostly encompassing education, self-monitoring, and behavioural techniques. The panel acknowledges that, for most SMIs, moderate resource requirements exist, and cost-effectiveness analyses do not distinctly favour either the SMI or UC. Additionally, it recognises that SMIs are likely to enhance equity, deeming them acceptable and feasible for implementation.

Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Type II Diabetes to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may be promising in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (T2DM). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study summarizes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to T2DM using a taxonomy for SMIs as a framework and identifies components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Following evidence mapping methodology, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for T2DM. We used the terms 'self-management', 'adult' and 'T2DM' for content. For data extraction, we used an online platform based on the taxonomy for SMIs. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, and a second checked accuracy. We identified 665 RCTs for SMIs (34% US, 21% Europe) including 164,437 (median 123, range 10-14,559) adults with T2DM. SMIs highly differed in design and content, and characteristics such as mode of delivery, intensity, location and providers involved were poorly described. The majority of interventions aimed to improve clinical outcomes like HbA1c (83%), weight (53%), lipid profile (45%) or blood pressure (42%); 27% (also) targeted quality of life. Improved knowledge, health literacy, patient activation or satisfaction with care were hardly used as outcomes (<16%). SMIs most often used education (98%), self-monitoring (56%), goal-setting (48%) and skills training (42%) to improve outcomes. Management of emotions (17%) and shared decision-making (5%) were almost never mentioned. Although diabetes is highly prevalent in some minority groups, in only 13% of the SMIs, these groups were included. Our findings highlight the large heterogeneity that exists in the design of SMIs for T2DM and the way studies are reported, making accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness challenging. In addition, SMIs pay limited attention to outcomes other than clinical, despite the importance attached to these outcomes by patients. More standardized and streamlined research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SMIs of T2DM and benefit patient care.

COVID-19 healthcare and social-related needs from the perspective of Spanish patients and healthcare providers: a qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions.

Introduction: Identifying stakeholders' needs is crucial to informing decisions and policy development. This study aims to identify healthcare and social-related needs and effective strategies associated with COVID-19 from the first-person perspectives of patients and healthcare providers. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey design including qualitative open-ended questions, conducted in primary care and hospital settings across Spain, with 12 out of 19 regions represented. Adults aged 18 years and older, who (a) resided in Spain and had a history of COVID-19 or (b) worked as healthcare providers delivering direct or indirect care for people with COVID-19 in Spanish primary care or hospitals during 2020 were eligible to participate. Recruitment was conducted via social-media networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp) and communication channels of key organizations including patient and professional associations and groups. A total of 182 people were invited to complete the surveys and 76 people completed the surveys (71% women), of which 33 were home-isolated patients, 14 were hospitalized patients, 16 were primary care professionals, and 13 were hospital care professionals. Results: A total of 327 needs and 86 effective strategies and positive aspects were identified across surveys and classified into the following overarching themes: (i) Accessibility, (ii) Basic needs, (iii) Clinical care, (iv) Person-and-family centered care, (v) Caring for the healthcare professional, (vi) Protocolization, information, health campaigns, and education, (vii) Resource availability, (viii) and Organizational needs/strategies. Discussion: Findings indicate the Spanish health and social care systems were generally unprepared to combat COVID-19. Implications for research, practice, and policy focus on integrating first-person perspectives as best practice to identify, prioritize and address needs to increase health and social care systems capacity and preparedness, as well as providing well-co-coordinated responses across government, healthcare, and non-government sectors to promote and protect the physical and mental health of all.

Identifying Factors to Facilitate the Implementation of Decision-Making Tools to Promote Self-Management of Chronic Diseases into Routine Healthcare Practice: A Qualitative Study.

This study, as part of the COMPAR-EU project, utilized a mixed-methods approach involving 37 individual, semi-structured interviews and one focus group with 7 participants to investigate the factors influencing the implementation and use of self-management interventions (SMIs) decision tools in clinical practice. The interviews and focus group discussions were guided by a tailored interview and focus group guideline developed based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) framework. The data were analyzed using a directed qualitative content analysis, with a deductive coding system based on the TICD framework and an inductive coding process. A rapid analysis technique was employed to summarize and synthesize the findings. The study identified five main dimensions and facilitators for implementation: decision tool factors, individual health professional factors, interaction factors, organizational factors, and social, political, and legal factors. The findings highlight the importance of structured implementation through SMI decision support tools, emphasizing the need to understand their benefits, secure organizational resources, and gain political support for sustainable implementation. Overall, this study employed a systematic approach, combining qualitative methods and comprehensive analysis, to gain insights into the factors influencing the implementation of SMIs' decision-support tools in clinical practice.

Relationship between adverse events prevalence, patient safety culture and patient safety perception in a single sample of patients: a cross-sectional and correlational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between adverse events prevalence (AEP), patient safety culture (PSC) and patient safety perception (PSP). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, ex post facto comparative study on a single sample of patients. SETTING: Four medium-high-level hospitals were included in the study-two public and two private from Zulia State in Venezuela. PARTICIPANTS: 556 medical records and patients were studied for the prevalence and PSP study, and 397 of the healthcare providers involved in the care of these patients were surveyed for the PSC study, at two public and two private hospitals. OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: The primary outcome of this study was the association between AEP, PSC and PSP, and according to hospital funding type, private and public. RESULTS: An inverse association was observed between AEP and its severity and Patient Safety Culture Index (rho=-0.8, p=0.5) (95% CI 0.26-0.10) and Patient Safety Perception Index (rho=-0.6, p=0.18) (95% CI 0.10-0.28), which were protective factors for patient safety. No association was identified between PSC and PSP (rho=0.0001). No statistical differences were identified by hospital type (p=0.93) (95% CI 0.70-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the variable correlations studied (AEP, PSC and PSP) within the same sample offers an interesting and useful perspective. In this sample, although no correlation was observed between the three variables as an interacting set, some correlation patterns were observed between pairs of variables that could guide further studies.

Patients' and informal caregivers' perspectives on self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus outcomes: a mixed-methods overview of 14 years of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions (SMIs) are core components of high-quality care in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to identify and summarise the scientific evidence exploring the perspectives of patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers on outcomes of SMIs, and the key themes to enhance T2DM patient-centred care. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, up to June 2021 for systematic reviews (SRs) exploring the perspectives of adults with T2DM and their informal caregivers, regarding self-management. Two reviewers conducted independently study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We estimated the degree of overlap across SRs. We performed a qualitative analysis using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: We identified 54 SRs, corresponding to 939 studies, with a slight overlap. Most SRs (47/54, 87%) were considered high quality. We developed summaries for 22 outcomes and identified six overarching themes: (1) diabetic identity; (2) accessing healthcare; (3) experience of care; (4) engagement with self-management; (5) outcomes awareness; and (6) challenges adhering to self-management. We found important variability in how patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers value critical outcomes influenced by the disease progression and several contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings represent what matters most to patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers regarding outcomes of SMIs. Our results can facilitate the development and evaluation of SMIs, and guide decision-making in diabetes care, including the formulation of decisions and recommendations.

Identifying most important contextual factors for the implementation of self-management interventions: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To reach consensus amongst stakeholders about the most important contextual factors (CFs) that may influence the successful implementation of (components of) self-management interventions (SMIs) for type 2 diabetes, obesity, COPD and heart failure. METHODS: Building on our literature review that identified 31 CFs on different levels we conducted a Delphi with 44 stakeholders to identify which of these CFs, or additional ones, contribute most to successful implementation of SMIs. The Delphi consisted of three rounds in which the CFs were scored, prioritized and discussed. RESULTS: The most important CFs overlapped to a great extent across components of SMIs and diseases. Overall, stakeholders identified 'HCP's ability to adapt the advice, communication or intervention to patients' situation and level of knowledge' as most important CF. CONCLUSION: CFs need to be taken into account when implementing promising SMIs. According to stakeholders, the most important CFs are patient-, HCP- or interaction related. 'Tailoring' was selected as the most crucial aspect for HCPs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Stakeholders can make informed decisions on the adoption of the most suitable SMIs in a given context. These CFs are available through a self-management platform. Suggestions to implement self-management behaviour and to close the research-to-practice gap are made.

Estonian adverse events study for multimorbid patients using Estonian Trigger Tool (MUPETT-MUltimorbid Patients-Estonian Trigger Tool). Development of Estonian trigger tool for multimorbid patients. A study protocol for mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: It is widely recognized that providing healthcare may produce harm to the patient. Different approaches have been developed to measure the burden of adverse events (AEs) to plan and measure the effects of interventions. One of the most widely used instruments is the Trigger Tool, which has previously been modified to be used on various settings and translated into many languages. Multimorbidity complicates care and may increase the number of AEs patients experience. Currently there is no instrument designed to measure AEs in multimorbid patients. In Estonia, there is currently no validated instrument to measure the burden of AEs. AIMS: The aim of this study will be evaluating the characteristics and ocurrence of AEs in multimorbid patients in hospitalised internal medicine patients of Estonia, and describes the development of a trigger tool for this purpose. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for the evidence on measuring AEs in the population of multimorbid patients focusing on trigger tools, and synthesize the data. Data collection of the triggers from the literature will be followed by translating triggers from English to Estonian. An expert multidisciplinary panel will select the suitable triggers for this population. Trigger tool will be pre-tested to assess agreement among professionals and usability of the tool. Validation will be done using 90 medical records. A cross-sectional study in internal medicine departments of two Estonian tertiary care hospitals will be performed to identify the frequency and characteristics of AEs in 960 medical records. We will also provide preventability potential and influencing factors. DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to healthcare providers and stakeholders at national and international conferences, and as a doctoral medical thesis.

Self-management interventions for adults living with obesity to improve patient-relevant outcomes: An evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported. CONCLUSION: There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations.

Exploring the Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases are a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. In response to this challenge, self-management interventions (SMIs) have emerged as an essential tool in improving patient outcomes. However, the diverse and complex nature of SMIs pose significant challenges in measuring their effectiveness. This work aims to investigate the comparative effectiveness of SMIs on Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) outcomes. METHODS: A rigorous analytical framework was employed to assess the relative effectiveness of different SMIs, encompassing both pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA), as well as component network meta-analysis (CNMA). Various outcomes were considered, including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) control, body mass index (BMI) reduction and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Visualization tools were also utilized to enhance the interpretation of results. RESULTS: SMIs were found promising in improving clinical outcomes and patient-reported measures. However, considerable heterogeneity and inconsistency across studies challenged the validity of NMA results. CNMA along with various visualization tools offered insights into the contributions of individual SMI components, highlighting the complexity of these interventions. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: SMIs represent a valuable approach to managing chronic conditions, but their effectiveness is context-dependent. Further research is needed to elucidate the contextual factors influencing SMI outcomes. This work contributes to a comprehensive understanding of SMIs' role in T2DM management, aiming to aid decision-makers, clinicians, and patients in selecting tailored interventions.

Using a Taxonomy to Systematically Identify and Describe Self-Management Interventions Components in Randomized Trials for COPD.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve outcomes in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study systematically describes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to COPD self-management using the COMPAR-EU taxonomy as a framework, identifying components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Overall, 235 RCTs published between 2010 and 2018, from a systematic review were coded using the taxonomy, which includes 132 components across four domains: intervention characteristics, expected patient (or caregiver) self-management behaviours, patient relevant outcomes, and target population characteristics. Risk of bias was also assessed. Interventions mainly focused on physical activity (67.4%), and condition-specific behaviours like breathing exercise (63.5%), self-monitoring (50.8%), and medication use (33.9%). Support techniques like education and skills-training, self-monitoring, and goal setting (over 35% of the RCTs) were mostly used for this. Emotional-based techniques, problem-solving, and shared decision-making were less frequently reported (less than 15% of the studies). Numerous SMIs components were insufficiently incorporated into the design of COPD SMIs or insufficiently reported. Characteristics like mode of delivery, intensity, location, and providers involved were often not described. Only 8% of the interventions were tailored to the target population's characteristics. Outcomes that are considered important by patients were hardly taken into account. There is still a lot to improve in both the design and description of SMIs for COPD. Using a framework such as the COMPAR-EU SMI taxonomy may contribute to better reporting and to better informing of replication efforts. In addition, prospective use of the taxonomy for developing and reporting intervention content would further aid in building a cumulative science of effective SMIs in COPD.

Global Healthcare Needs Related to COVID-19: An Evidence Map of the First Year of the Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed gaps and areas of need in health systems worldwide. This work aims to map the evidence on COVID-19-related healthcare needs of adult patients, their family members, and the professionals involved in their care during the first year of the pandemic. We searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Descriptive data were extracted and inductive qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and derive overarching themes. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, with the majority reporting needs from the perspective of professionals (35/36). Professionals' needs were grouped into three main clusters (basic, occupational, and psycho-socio-emotional needs); patients' needs into four (basic, healthcare, psycho-socio-emotional, and other support needs); and family members' needs into two (psycho-socio-emotional and communication needs). Transversal needs across subgroups were also identified and grouped into three main clusters (public safety, information and communication, and coordination and support needs). This evidence map provides valuable insight on COVID-19-related healthcare needs. More research is needed to assess first-person perspectives of patients and their families, examine whether needs differ by country or region, and evaluate how needs have evolved over time.

Preferences Regarding Self-Management Intervention Outcomes of Dutch Chronically Ill Patients With Limited Health Literacy.

Background: For many chronically ill patients self-management of their disease is difficult. This may be especially true for people with limited health literacy as they are faced with additional challenges in the day-to-day management of their disease. Research has shown that self-management support is most effective when tailored to the needs and preferences of patients. Therefore, this study explores the preferences regarding self-management outcomes of chronically ill patients with limited health literacy. Methods: A total of 35 patients with limited health literacy were invited to a concept-mapping procedure consisting of two card sorting tasks. Patients ranked 60 outcomes, which are often found in literature in relation to self-management, to the level that was important for themselves. Means were calculated for each outcome and domain, and differences within the group were analyzed. Results: For patients with limited health literacy, satisfaction with care is the most important outcome domain. This domain includes overall satisfaction, the communication with health care providers, the provision of information and trust. At an outcome level, outcomes related to symptom management and improving competences to self-management scored very high. No differences between patient groups for age and sex were found. Conclusion: Chronically ill patients with limited health literacy prefer a wide variety of outcomes for their self-management. Next to health related outcomes, patients mostly prefer to work on their competences for self-management. For health care professionals, acting on these patient preferences and building a solid relationship will enhance successful self-management.

Shared decision-making in Spain in 2022: An updated revision of the current situation.

In Spain, there is not a national strategy to promote shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice, and it is still not a requisite for improving the quality of health services, in either the legal norms or professionals' educational curricula. However, several national strategies in specific health areas increasingly include the principles of person centred care (PCC) and SDM into their objectives, promoting patients' empowerment and activation. Furthermore, several institutions continue to develop Patient Decision Aids (PtDAs) and other resources to facilitate patients' involvement in their own care; training programs for professionals; links between PtDAs and clinical practice guidelines; as well as interventional studies assessing the impact of PCC and SDM interventions in clinical practice. Initiatives to involve patients in health research design and health technology assessment are also being developed. We describe an update of the current state of research, policy and implementation of SDM after five years of substantial advances in Spain. Many challenges remain regarding national and regional policies on PCC and SDM, implementation of SDM in real practice and educational curricula, development of quality indicators and evaluation procedures.

A Virtual Community of Practice to Improve Primary Health Care Professionals' Attitudes Toward Patient Empowerment (e-MPODERA): A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice (vCoP) in improving primary health care professionals' (HCPs') attitudes toward empowering patients with chronic disease. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial. Practices were units of randomization, and primary HCPs and patients were units of analysis. Sixty-three practices in Madrid, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands were randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. Randominzation of practices was performed after HCP and patient recruitment. The patients and statistician were anonymized to group allocation; it was not possible to anonymize HCPs. The intervention was a 12-month multicomponent tailored vCoP built on the Web 2.0 concept and focused on skills toward patient empowerment. The primary outcome was Patient-Provider Orientation Scale (PPOS) score at baseline and at 12 months. The secondary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score. RESULTS: A total of 321 HCPs and 1,921 patients were assessed. The intervention had a positive effect on PPOS total score (0.14 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25; P = .011) and the PPOS Sharing subscale (0.3 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.15-0.44; P < .001). No effect was found for the PPOS Caring subscale, and no significant differences were found for PAM scores. CONCLUSIONS: A vCoP led to a minor increase in the PPOS Sharing component and the total score but not in the Caring component. However, considerable uncertainty remains, given the observed attrition and other limitations of the study. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of the vCoP model and on how to improve HCP engagement.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

The development of a core outcomes set for self-management interventions for patients living with obesity.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) can improve the life of patients living with obesity. However, there is variability in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of SMIs and these are often not relevant for patients. In the context of COMPAR-EU, our aim was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the evaluation of SMIs for patients with obesity. We followed a four steps multimethod approach: (1) the development of the initial catalogue of outcomes; (2) a scoping review of reviews on patients' values and preferences on outcomes of self-management (SM); (3) a Delphi survey including patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes; and (4) a 2-day consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, healthcare professionals and researchers. The initial catalogue included 82 outcomes. Ten patients and patient's representatives participated in the Delphi survey. We identified 16 themes through the thematic synthesis of the scoping review that informed 37.80% of the outcomes on initial catalogue. Five patients, five healthcare professionals, and four researchers participated in the consensus workshop. After the consensus process, 15 outcomes were selected to be part of the final COS, and five supplementary outcomes were also provided. We developed a COS for the evaluation of SMIs in obesity with a significant involvement of patients and other key stakeholders. This COS will help improving data synthesis and increasing the value of SM research data in healthcare decision making.