Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Evaluating a web-based personalized decision report for total knee or hip replacement: Lessons learned from patients.
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in the context of clinical care, but evaluation of patients' perspectives of PRO-based applications in routine care remains limited. ⋯ Our findings highlight areas of opportunity to further refine this personalized web-based decision report and similar patient-facing PRO applications for routine clinical care. Specific examples include additional tailoring of reports via filterable web-based dashboards and scalable educational supports to facilitate more independent patient understanding and use.
-
Observational Study
Comparing survey data to qualitative themes in patient stories to help researchers better identify pressing community healthcare needs.
Narrative medicine is a powerful approach for strengthening clinicians' therapeutic alliances with patients and helping them understand others' perspectives by giving patients a voice. MyPaTH Story Booth is a cross-sectional observational study that uses narrative medicine concepts to allow community participants to share their health and healthcare-related experiences through relatively unstructured interviews (i.e., stories). The archive forms a qualitative research 'commons' where researchers can learn about patient and caregiver perspectives and tailor research goals to better address community needs. Brief surveys allow storytellers to classify their stories so that the archive is searchable. ⋯ Survey items based on NLM Health Topics allowed people to categorize their health narratives into relevant, searchable topics making the database more accessible.
-
Patients look to their clinicians for explanations and treatments that achieve predictable cures with certainty. Clinicians usually respond accordingly. Acknowledging uncertainty, while necessary, is difficult, anxiety-provoking and at times overwhelming for patients and clinicians alike. ⋯ Through the lenses of evidence-based medicine and complexity sciences this paper critically explores the clinical management of three patients diagnosed as having coronary artery disease. They all received the same treatment even though they presented with very different clinical complaints arising from different disease manifestations. Looking at these case studies the authors reflect on the reasons behind this astonishing, but widely seen medical behaviour of 'one size fits all'. They critically reflect the importance of research and evidence in view of a person-centred solution.