- MAST model info

Report
Patient perspectives
Alison Bowes
University of Stirling
May 2010
Berlin
In this domain
•
•
Outcomes = patient’s (and relatives’) perceptions and satisfaction
Not easy to define, as includes many aspects such as:
– Feelings, comfort
– Interaction with professionals
– Convenience, timeliness
– Overall satisfaction
– Preference as compared with face to face interaction
– Privacy and confidentiality
– Professionals’ competence and/or personal manner
– Views about the technology itself
– Informativeness of professionals
– Usefulness/potential for future use
– Self efficacy and empowerment
•
An evaluation has to specify which aspects are important and therefore which will be
investigated.
May 2010
Berlin
2
Choosing outcome
measures
• Standard or bespoke instruments?
• Need to be specific and reportable
• Need to use standard instruments where these are
appropriate
• Criterion: what do we need to know, given the nature of the
intervention? Key aspects from MAST are
•
•
•
•
•
•
Satisfaction or acceptance
Understanding of information
Confidence
Ease of use
Access
Empowerment and self-efficacy
May 2010
Berlin
3
Examples from literature
•
•
•
Qualitative methods:
– Interviews (semi structured)
– Diary keeping
– Patients record and self report their symptoms
Quantitative methods
– Questionnaires to patients
– Standard satisfaction survey (e.g. Group Health Association of America
Consumer Satisfaction Survey)
– Standard health measures (e.g. SF36 – a generic health and well-being scale)
– Condition related standard measures (e.g. DQOL [Diabetes], DemQOL
[Dementia] and others)
Mixed methods
– Selection of qualitative and quantitative tools
May 2010
Berlin
4
Collecting data on
patient perceptions
• Consider what criteria need to be considered
• Design a systematic approach to data
collection
• Integrate the collection of satisfaction data
within the system
• Ensure that data can be analysed readily
• No need to re-invent the wheel (see Appendix
to MAST, which includes many suggestions)
May 2010
Berlin
5
Examples from literature
• Surveys which combine standard and bespoke
measures (e.g. standard satisfaction measures with
specific questions about access to services, when
intervention was delivered in rural areas)
• Mixed methods data collection (e.g. in teleoncology
services, some quantitative questionnaire work, but
more open-ended interview data which is helpful
where patients and their families are in varied
circumstances and locations)
• Patients keep a record of their symptoms (e.g. this was
frequently used in telepsychiatry)
May 2010
Berlin
6
Handy hints
• Focus on key aspects (less may be more…..)
• Remember the key criteria
•
•
•
•
•
•
Satisfaction or acceptance
Understanding of information
Confidence
Ease of use
Access
Empowerment and self-efficacy
• Integrate data collection with other procedures
• Allow for the unexpected (e.g. differences between patients,
unintended results)
• Make sure that the data are used to inform the intervention
• See patients as partners in care, who contribute to successful
outcomes
May 2010
Berlin
7
Thanks and contacts
Thank you for listening.
Any questions?
www.renewinghealth.eu
Date
Place
8

similar documents