A Proposed ‘Health Literate Care Model’ Would Constitute A Systems Approach To Improving Patients’ Engagement In Care
TL;DR: A Health Literate Care Model is proposed that would weave health literacy strategies into the widely adopted Care Model (formerly known as the Chronic Care Model) and calls for first approaching all patients with the assumption that they are at risk of not understanding their health conditions or how to deal with them, and subsequently confirming and ensuring patients' understanding.
Abstract: Improving health outcomes relies on patients’ full engagement in prevention, decision-making, and self-management activities. Health literacy, or people’s ability to obtain, process, communicate, a...
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The P-PAE model is timely and sustainable and will be critical to engaging patients in their treatment, developing patients’ abilities to manage their health, helping patients express concerns and preferences regarding treatment, empowering patients to ask questions about treatment options, and building up strategic patient–provider partnerships through shared decision making.
Abstract: Designing culturally sensitive personalized interventions is essential to sustain patients' involvement in their treatment and encourage patients to take an active role in their own health and health care. We consider patient activation and empowerment as a cyclical process defined through patient accumulation of knowledge, confidence, and self-determination for their own health and health care. We propose a patient-centered, multilevel activation and empowerment framework (individual-, health care professional-, community-, and health care delivery system-level) to inform the development of culturally informed personalized patient activation and empowerment (P-PAE) interventions to improve population health and reduce racial and ethnic disparities. We discuss relevant Affordable Care Act payment and delivery policy reforms and how they affect patient activation and empowerment. Such policies include Accountable Care Organizations and value-based purchasing, patient-centered medical homes, and the community health benefit. Challenges and possible solutions to implementing the P-PAE are discussed. Comprehensive and longitudinal data sets with consistent P-PAE measures are needed to conduct comparative effectiveness analyses to evaluate the optimal P-PAE model. We believe the P-PAE model is timely and sustainable and will be critical to engaging patients in their treatment, developing patients' abilities to manage their health, helping patients express concerns and preferences regarding treatment, empowering patients to ask questions about treatment options, and building up strategic patient-provider partnerships through shared decision making.
130 citations
TL;DR: Patients’ perceptions of their relationships with providers, including lack of shared decision-making or trust, demonstrated strong associations with antidepressant non-adherence, and interventions for healthcare providers and systems that foster shared decisions and trust might improve medication adherence.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
Depression and adherence to antidepressant treatment are important clinical concerns in diabetes care. While patient–provider communication patterns have been associated with adherence for cardiometabolic medications, it is unknown whether interpersonal aspects of care impact antidepressant medication adherence.
128 citations
TL;DR: eHealth research that is intended to translate into policy and practice should be more contextual, report more on setting factors, employ more responsive and pragmatic designs and report results more transparently on issues important to potential adopting patients, clinicians and organizational decision makers.
118 citations
TL;DR: Overall, the results supported the conclusion that the CHLT-30 accurately measures cancer health literacy along a continuum and that theCHLT-6 efficiently identifies patients with limited cancer health Literacy with high accuracy.
Abstract: Health literacy is related to a broad range of health outcomes. This study was designed to develop a psychometrically sound instrument designed to measure cancer health literacy along a continuum (CHLT-30), to develop another instrument designed to determine whether a patient has limited cancer health literacy (CHLT-6), and to estimate the prevalence of limited cancer health literacy. The Cancer Health Literacy Study involving 1,306 Black and White cancer patients was conducted between April 2011 and April 2013 in the Virginia Commonwealth University Massey Cancer Center and surrounding oncology clinics. A continuous latent variable modeling framework was adopted to dimensionally represent cancer health literacy, whereas discrete latent variable modeling was used to estimate the prevalence rates of limited cancer health literacy. Self confidence about engaging in health decisions was used as the primary outcome in external validation of new instruments. Results from a comprehensive analysis strongly supported the construct validity and reliability of the CHLT-30 and CHLT-6. For both instruments, measurement invariance tests ruled out item/test bias to explain gender and race/ethnicity differences in test scores. The limited cancer health literacy rate was 18%, a subpopulation consisting of overrepresented Black, undereducated, and low-income cancer patients. Overall, the results supported the conclusion that the CHLT-30 accurately measures cancer health literacy along a continuum and that the CHLT-6 efficiently identifies patients with limited cancer health literacy with high accuracy.
112 citations
TL;DR: The data from a randomized, controlled study support the effectiveness of teach-back in a busy clinical setting and recommend it for routine use including its impacts on distal outcomes.
Abstract: ObjectiveRecommended as a ‘universal precaution’ for improving provider–patient communication, teach-back has a limited evidence base. Discharge from the emergency department (ED) to home is an important high-risk transition of care with potential for miscommunication of critical information. We examined whether teach-back improves: comprehension and perceived comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among patients with limited health literacy (LHL) in the ED.MethodsWe performed a randomized, controlled study among adult patients with LHL, randomized to teach-back or standard discharge instructions. Patients completed an audio-recorded structured interview evaluating comprehension and perceived comprehension of (1) diagnosis, (2) ED course, (3) post-ED care, and (4) reasons to return and satisfaction using four Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questions. Concordance with the medical record was rated using a five-level scale. We analyzed differences between gr...
107 citations
Cites background from "A Proposed ‘Health Literate Care Mo..."
...Effective and feasible interventions to improve provider–patient communication at high-risk transitions of care are greatly needed.(11,41)...
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Abstract: Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.
Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.
Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).
Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:
A) 'choice made' attributes;
B) 'decision-making process' attributes.
Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.
Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.
Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).
A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:
Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).
B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:
Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:
a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);
b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and
c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).
Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.
C) Secondary outcomes
Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.
The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.
Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.
New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.
5,042 citations
TL;DR: The CCM is described, its use in intensive quality improvement activities with more than 100 health care organizations, and insights gained in the process are described, to guide quality improvement.
Abstract: The growing number of persons suffering from major chronic illnesses face many obstacles in coping with their condition, not least of which is medical care that often does not meet their needs for effective clinical management, psychological support, and information. The primary reason for this may be the mismatch between their needs and care delivery systems largely designed for acute illness. Evidence of effective system changes that improve chronic care is mounting. We have tried to summarize this evidence in the Chronic Care Model (CCM) to guide quality improvement. In this paper we describe the CCM, its use in intensive quality improvement activities with more than 100 health care organizations, and insights gained in the process.
3,215 citations
TL;DR: The challenge is to organize these components into an integrated system of chronic illness care, which can be done most efficiently and effectively in primary care practice rather than requiring specialized systems of care.
Abstract: Usual medical care often fails to meet the needs of chronically ill patients, even in managed, integrated delivery systems. The medical literature suggests strategies to improve outcomes in these patients. Effective interventions tend to fall into one of five areas: the use of evidence-based, planned care; reorganization of practice systems and provider roles; improved patient self-management support; increased access to expertise; and greater availability of clinical information. The challenge is to organize these components into an integrated system of chronic illness care. Whether this can be done most efficiently and effectively in primary care practice rather than requiring specialized systems of care remains unanswered.
2,805 citations
TL;DR: Accumulated evidence appears to support the Chronic Care Model as an integrated framework to guide practice redesign, and studies suggest that redesigning care using the CCM leads to improved patient care and better health outcomes.
Abstract: Developed more than a decade ago, the Chronic Care Model (CCM) is a widely adopted approach to improving ambulatory care that has guided clinical quality initiatives in the United States and around the world. We examine the evidence of the CCM’s effectiveness by reviewing articles published since 2000 that used one of five key CCM papers as a reference. Accumulated evidence appears to support the CCM as an integrated framework to guide practice redesign. Although work remains to be done in areas such as cost-effectiveness, these studies suggest that redesigning care using the CCM leads to improved patient care and better health outcomes.
1,418 citations
TL;DR: This work identified essential elements of collaborative management of chronic illness in light of behavioral principles and empirical evidence about enhancement of self-care, and discussed critical next steps to improve care of Chronic illness in organized health care systems.
Abstract: In chronic illness, day-to-day care responsibilities fall most heavily on patients and their families. Effective collaborative relationships with health care providers can help patients and families better handle self-care tasks. Collaborative management is care that strengthens and supports self-care in chronic illness while assuring that effective medical, preventive, and health maintenance interventions take place. In this paper, the following essential elements of collaborative management developed in light of behavioral principles and empirical evidence about effective care in chronic illness are discussed: 1) collaborative definition of problems, in which patient-defined problems are identified along with medical problems diagnosed by physicians; 2) targeting, goal setting, and planning, in which patients and providers focus on a specific problem, set realistic objectives, and develop an action plan for attaining those objectives in the context of patient preferences and readiness; 3) creation of a continuum of self-management training and support services, in which patients have access to services that teach skills needed to carry out medical regimens, guide health behavior changes, and provide emotional support; and 4) active and sustained follow-up, in which patients are contacted at specified intervals to monitor health status, identify potential complications, and check and reinforce progress in implementing the care plan. These elements make up a common core of services for chronic illness care that need not be reinvented for each disease.
1,240 citations