ObjectiveTo explore adult medical oncology outpatients’ understanding of and preferences for the format of health risk information.MethodsTwo surveys, one assessing sociodemographic characteristics and a second survey examining perceptions of risk information.ResultsOf the 361 (74%) consenting patients, 210 completed at least one question on risk communication. 17% to 65% of patients understood numeric risk information, depending on the format of the information. More than 50% of people interpreted a “very good” chance of remission as greater than 80%, greater than 90% or 100%. The most preferred format of information was in both words and numbers (38% to 43%) followed by words alone (28% to 30%).ConclusionNumeric risk information is understood by 17% to 65% of respondents, depending on the format. Interpretation of verbal risk information is highly variable, posing a risk of misunderstanding. Provision of information in both words and numbers may assist in aiding comprehension.

Background: Adequately preparing patients for medical interventions is an important component of quality healthcare. Nevertheless, few instruments for assessing patients' preparation exist.Objectives: To develop a psychometrically rigorous instrument to assess patients' perceptions of the quality of preparation.Methods: An instrument to measure patients' preparation for medical interventions (MiPrep) was developed and tested with patients undergoing medical imaging, radiotherapy, or surgery. Patients were recruited and asked to complete 2 surveys. Survey A assessed patient and intervention characteristics. Survey B (postintervention) contained MiPrep to assess validity (face, content, and construct) and reliability (internal consistency and test-retest).Results: A total of 869 (85%) patients consented to participate and 551 (63%) returned the postintervention survey. Face and content validity were demonstrated. Exploratory factor analysis identified 2 survey modules: receipt and adequacy of information (2 domains) and overall appraisal of patient-centered care (1 domain). Reliability was evidenced by adequate internal consistency (Cronbach a 0.81-0.89) and item-total correlations higher than 0.20. Nevertheless, individual item test-retest reliability requires further confirmation. The final instrument contained 27 items. Conclusions:The MiPrep instrument has evidence of being a valid and reliable instrument of preparation for medical interventions. Healthcare providers can use the instrument as a quality assurance tool to identify areas for improvement and areas of excellence in patients' preparation. Future studies should verify these findings in other populations and examine the divergent and predictive validity of the instrument.

No abstract

BackgroundThe impetus to develop and implement tools for non-malignant patient groups is reflected in the increasing number of instruments being developed for heart failure and chronic respiratory diseases. Evidence syntheses of psychometric quality and clinical utility of these tools is required to inform research and clinical practice.AimsThis systematic review examined palliative care needs tools for people diagnosed with advanced heart failure or chronic respiratory diseases, to determine their: (1) psychometric quality; and (2) acceptability, feasibility and clinical utility when implemented in clinical practice.MethodsSystematic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane and PsycINFO from database inception until June 2021 were undertaken. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies were searched for relevant articles. Psychometric properties of identified measures were evaluated against pre-determined and standard criteria.ResultsEighteen tools met inclusion criteria: 11 were developed to assess unmet patient palliative care needs. Of those, 6 were generic, 4 were developed for heart failure and 1 was developed for interstitial lung disease. Seven tools identified those who may benefit from palliative care and include general and disease-specific indicators. The psychometric qualities of the tools varied. None met all of the accepted criteria for psychometric rigor in heart failure or respiratory disease populations. There is limited implementation of needs assessment tools in practice.ConclusionSeveral tools were identified, however further validation studies in heart failure and respiratory disease populations are required. Rigorous evaluation to determine the impact of adopting a systematic needs-based approach for heart failure and lung disease on the physical and psychosocial outcomes of patients and carers, as well as the economic costs and benefits to the healthcare system, is required.