Health outcome priorities of people with multiple long-term conditions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Survey data from the UK

Harini Sathanapally, Yogini Chudasama, Francesco Zaccardi, Alessando Rizzi, Samuel Seidu, Kamlesh Khunti
{"title":"Health outcome priorities of people with multiple long-term conditions before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Survey data from the UK","authors":"Harini Sathanapally, Yogini Chudasama, Francesco Zaccardi, Alessando Rizzi, Samuel Seidu, Kamlesh Khunti","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.24.24304807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The outcome prioritisation tool (OPT) is a simple tool to ascertain the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC. Use of this tool in people aged under 65 years with MLTC has not previously been investigated. This study investigated the feasibility of using the OPT in people with MLTC aged 45 years or above, in a multi-ethnic primary-care setting, to describe the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC by age, clusters of long-term conditions and demographic factors, and to investigate any differences in prioritisation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.\nMethods\nThis was a multi-centre cross-sectional study using a questionnaire for online self-completion by people aged 45 years or above with MLTC in 19 primary care settings across the East Midlands, UK. Participants were asked to complete the OPT twice, first from their current perspective and second from their recollection of their priorities prior to COVID-19. Results\nThe questionnaire was completed by 2,454 people with MLTC. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the OPT was easy to complete, relevant to their healthcare and will be useful in communicating priorities to their doctor. Summary scores for the whole cohort of participants showed Keeping Alive and Maintaining Independence receiving the highest scores. Statistically significant differences in prioritisation by age, clusters of long-term conditions and employment status were observed, with respondents aged over 65 most likely to prioritise Maintaining independence, and respondents aged under 65 most likely to prioritise Keeping alive. There were no differences before or after COVID-19, or by ethnicity.\nConclusions\nThe OPT is feasible and acceptable for use to elicit the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC across both middle-aged and older age groups and in a UK setting. Individual factors could influence the priorities of people with MLTC and must be considered by clinicians during consultations.","PeriodicalId":501023,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Primary Care Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.24.24304807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background The outcome prioritisation tool (OPT) is a simple tool to ascertain the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC. Use of this tool in people aged under 65 years with MLTC has not previously been investigated. This study investigated the feasibility of using the OPT in people with MLTC aged 45 years or above, in a multi-ethnic primary-care setting, to describe the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC by age, clusters of long-term conditions and demographic factors, and to investigate any differences in prioritisation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a multi-centre cross-sectional study using a questionnaire for online self-completion by people aged 45 years or above with MLTC in 19 primary care settings across the East Midlands, UK. Participants were asked to complete the OPT twice, first from their current perspective and second from their recollection of their priorities prior to COVID-19. Results The questionnaire was completed by 2,454 people with MLTC. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the OPT was easy to complete, relevant to their healthcare and will be useful in communicating priorities to their doctor. Summary scores for the whole cohort of participants showed Keeping Alive and Maintaining Independence receiving the highest scores. Statistically significant differences in prioritisation by age, clusters of long-term conditions and employment status were observed, with respondents aged over 65 most likely to prioritise Maintaining independence, and respondents aged under 65 most likely to prioritise Keeping alive. There were no differences before or after COVID-19, or by ethnicity. Conclusions The OPT is feasible and acceptable for use to elicit the health outcome priorities of people with MLTC across both middle-aged and older age groups and in a UK setting. Individual factors could influence the priorities of people with MLTC and must be considered by clinicians during consultations.
在 COVID-19 大流行之前和期间,患有多种长期疾病的人在健康结果方面的优先考虑事项:英国的调查数据
背景 成果优先排序工具 (OPT) 是一种简单的工具,可用于确定多发性硬化症患者的健康成果优先排序。此前尚未对 65 岁以下的多发性骨髓瘤患者使用该工具进行过调查。本研究调查了在多民族初级保健机构中对 45 岁或以上的多发性骨髓增生异常综合征患者使用 OPT 的可行性,以描述多发性骨髓增生异常综合征患者按年龄、长期病症群组和人口统计因素划分的健康结果优先级,并调查在 COVID-19 大流行的情况下优先级的任何差异。方法这是一项多中心横断面研究,采用在线自我填写问卷的方式,由英国东米德兰地区 19 个初级保健机构中 45 岁或以上的多发性骨髓增生异常综合征患者填写。参与者被要求完成两次 OPT,第一次是从他们当前的角度,第二次是从他们对 COVID-19 之前优先事项的回忆。结果2,454 名多发性骨髓瘤患者完成了问卷调查。大多数参与者同意或非常同意 OPT 易于填写,与他们的医疗保健相关,并有助于向医生传达优先事项。所有参与者的总分显示,"保持生命活力 "和 "保持自立 "得分最高。根据年龄、长期病症群组和就业状况的不同,受访者的优先级在统计学上存在显著差异,65 岁以上的受访者最有可能优先考虑 "保持独立",而 65 岁以下的受访者最有可能优先考虑 "保持活力"。在 COVID-19 之前或之后,或按种族划分,均无差异。结论在英国环境下,OPT 是可行且可接受的,可用于了解中老年多发性硬化症患者的健康结果优先级。个人因素可能会影响 MLTC 患者的优先考虑事项,临床医生在咨询时必须加以考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信