H02 Outcome mapping for care delivery interventions for huntington’s disease patients in the community

D. Rae, A. McDermott, Z. Miedzybrodzka, K. Gillies
{"title":"H02 Outcome mapping for care delivery interventions for huntington’s disease patients in the community","authors":"D. Rae, A. McDermott, Z. Miedzybrodzka, K. Gillies","doi":"10.1136/jnnp-2018-EHDN.183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background The production of meaningful evidence about the effectiveness of complex care delivery interventions requires clear definition and consistent use of outcomes that matter to key stakeholders (service users and professionals). Outcomes for the evaluation of such interventions in multifaceted neurodegenerative progressive conditions, such as Huntington’s disease (HD) have not been previously reviewed. Objective The objectives of this article are 1) to comprehensively map outcomes reported in the existing literature on care delivery interventions in HD and 2) to identify any convergences/divergences in patterns and stakeholder perspectives across the identified outcomes. Main results A total of 16 studies and supplementary documents were identified measuring 48 outcomes. These were categorised into three outcome categories, 34 outcome types and 47 variables. Only two outcome types, ’Specialist Knowledge and understanding’ and ’Confidence’, previously suggested by service users as important (n=10) were considered in formal care delivery evaluations. Conclusion A large number of outcomes are currently measured and suggested in the evaluation and description of care delivery in HD. This outcome map highlights the inconsistent use of outcomes important to and suggested by key stakeholders. Clear understanding of what intervention mechanisms and interactions may be relevant (and to whom) and produce desired outcomes is missing in existing literature.","PeriodicalId":16509,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry","volume":"172 1","pages":"A69 - A69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2018-EHDN.183","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 production of meaningful evidence about the effectiveness of complex care delivery interventions requires clear definition and consistent use of outcomes that matter to key stakeholders (service users and professionals). Outcomes for the evaluation of such interventions in multifaceted neurodegenerative progressive conditions, such as Huntington’s disease (HD) have not been previously reviewed. Objective The objectives of this article are 1) to comprehensively map outcomes reported in the existing literature on care delivery interventions in HD and 2) to identify any convergences/divergences in patterns and stakeholder perspectives across the identified outcomes. Main results A total of 16 studies and supplementary documents were identified measuring 48 outcomes. These were categorised into three outcome categories, 34 outcome types and 47 variables. Only two outcome types, ’Specialist Knowledge and understanding’ and ’Confidence’, previously suggested by service users as important (n=10) were considered in formal care delivery evaluations. Conclusion A large number of outcomes are currently measured and suggested in the evaluation and description of care delivery in HD. This outcome map highlights the inconsistent use of outcomes important to and suggested by key stakeholders. Clear understanding of what intervention mechanisms and interactions may be relevant (and to whom) and produce desired outcomes is missing in existing literature.
H02社区亨廷顿舞蹈病患者护理干预的结果图
背景:要产生关于复杂护理干预措施有效性的有意义的证据,需要对关键利益相关者(服务使用者和专业人员)重要的结果进行明确定义和一致使用。在亨廷顿舞蹈病(HD)等多方面神经退行性进行性疾病中评估此类干预措施的结果之前尚未进行过综述。本文的目的是1)全面绘制现有文献中关于HD护理提供干预措施报告的结果,2)确定在确定的结果中模式和利益相关者观点的任何趋同/分歧。主要结果共纳入16项研究和补充文献,测量48项结果。这些结果分为三个结果类别,34种结果类型和47个变量。在正式的护理服务评估中,只有两种结果类型,即“专业知识和理解”和“信心”,被服务使用者认为是重要的(n=10)。结论目前在评估和描述HD的护理服务时,测量和建议了大量的结果。这张成果图突出了对关键利益攸关方重要和由其建议的成果的不一致使用。现有文献中缺乏对哪些干预机制和相互作用可能相关(以及与谁相关)并产生预期结果的清晰理解。
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