Concept Mapping as a Scalable Method for Identifying Patient-Important Outcomes

Completed

Conditions: Concept Mapping Versus Interviews

Interventions: Other: Interviews
Other: Concept Mapping (CM)

Registration Number: NCT02792777

Lead Sponsor: Thomas Jefferson University

Brief Summary: The goal of this study is to improve the methods with which researchers identify patient centered outcomes for use in research. Specifically, the investigators will test the application of concept mapping as compared to one-on-one interviews as a comprehensive and efficient method of identifying patient-important outcomes for use in research.

Detailed Description: This is an observational study comparing two methods - concept mapping and one-on-one interviews. The investigators will test the methods themselves by comparing the comprehensiveness of the lists of patient-important outcomes obtained through each method (primary outcome) as well as the efficiency, as measured by resource intensiveness, of the methods (secondary outcome). The aims of this study will be tested with adult patients with moderately to poorly controlled diabetes mellitus who receive care at a large, urban, academic health system. In order to allow comparisons of the comprehensiveness of the methods in producing patient-important outcomes regardless of the healthcare setting in which outcomes are elicited, the investigators will recruit patients for the interview group from 3 different care settings: an acute care visit (in the emergency department), a post-acute care visit (within 1 week of a hospital discharge), and a routine primary care visit. Target sample size within each healthcare setting is 30 patients, which is the anticipated number needed for thematic saturation. The investigators will then recruit patient-participants from existing clinical and research databases for 3 separate concept mapping groups, each with a target of 20 patients. In Aim 2, the investigators will test the hypothesis that concept mapping in a research setting produces outcomes consistent with those elicited from patients in the "real-world" settings. In Aim 3, the investigators will assess the overall resource utilization, assessed primarily by time required from patients, the research team, and the advisory board, of qualitative interviews conducted to thematic saturation within a single healthcare setting compared to resources used for a single iteration of concept mapping.

Findings from this work will improve patient-centered outcomes research methods by providing researchers with information about standardized scalable methods to identify patient-important outcomes for use in research studies, so that individual patients are able to select outcomes that are most useful to them. In addition to providing insight regarding methods for eliciting patient-centered outcomes, the study will also provide valuable information to stakeholders regarding how patients' priorities vary across the care continuum. The investigators will report how findings from concept mapping apply across healthcare settings, and the degree to which patient priorities (based on interviews) differ across healthcare settings. If concept mapping results (collected in the research setting) capture the priorities identified by patients across different healthcare settings, this finding would enhance researchers' ability to perform studies in different, or multiple, settings. If the findings do not generalize across settings, this will be a valuable finding demonstrating that patient priorities differ across interview settings and patient acuity and will validate researchers' needs to be specific about the setting in which they choose to perform research to ensure they are reaching their intended patient population.

The work is being performed in close collaboration with the Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board (PAKSAB) - equal partners with the research team who have been involved with the proposal from inception. PAKSAB members will be part of the research team throughout conducting the aims and assisting with all analysis and data interpretation.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Status: COMPLETED

Sex: All

Target Recruitment: 148

Inclusion Criteria

Adult patient (age 18 and older)
- English speaking
- Provide informed consent
Diagnosis of moderately to poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM) defined as follows (for interview groups):
- Acute care setting: patient in the Jefferson Emergency Department (ED) for a diabetes-related problem determined to require medical treatment
- Post-acute care setting: patient was discharged from the Jefferson Family Medicine Associates (JFMA) hospital service within the past 7 days after admission for a diabetes-related problem
- Primary care setting: patient currently attending a routine scheduled care visit (not urgent need) at the JFMA practice and has at least 2 measurements of HgbA1C > 7.5 in the prior one year
Diagnosis of moderately to poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (DM) defined as follows (for concept mapping groups):
- Acute care setting: patient within the Jefferson ED patient contact database (see below) who has had a visit to the Jefferson ED over the past 6 months (as determined on chart review) for a diabetes-related problem
- Post-acute care setting: patient was discharged from the JFMA hospital service within the past 6 months after admission for a diabetes-related problem
- Primary care setting: patient has had routine scheduled office visit within the past 6 months to the JFMA practice and has at least 2 measurements of HgbA1C > 7.5 in the prior one year

Exclusion Criteria

Patient has had a significant permanent complication related to DM including:
- End stage renal disease
- History of amputation
- Blindness related to diabetes complication
Patient undergoing medical clearance for a detox center or any involuntary court or magistrate order
Patient in police custody or currently incarcerated individual
Patient who has, in their clinician's best judgment, major communication barriers such as visual or hearing impairment or dementia that would compromise their ability to give written informed consent

Study & Design

Study Type: OBSERVATIONAL

Study Design: Not specified

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Interviews	Interviews	Interview participants will be recruited from 3 different care settings: an acute care visit (in the emergency department), a post-acute care visit (within 1 week of a hospital discharge), and a routine primary care visit. Target sample size within each healthcare setting is 30 patients, which is the anticipated number needed for thematic saturation. The total recruitment goal for this cohort is 90-120 participants.
Concept Mapping	Concept Mapping (CM)	Concept mapping participants will be recruited from existing clinical and research databases for 3 separate concept mapping groups, each with a target of 20 patients. The total recruitment goal for this cohort is 60 people.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Comprehensiveness of Concept Mapping	3 days for one concept mapping group	The investigators will measure the comprehensiveness of outcomes elicited in one concept mapping group compared to multiple groups. The investigators will assess "concept mapping saturation," wherein we compare the patient-important outcomes that emerge from each CM group. The investigators will use the outcomes from our first group as the "baseline data," and will determine the amount of new data added from including a second/third group. This assessment will allow us to draw a basic "concept mapping saturation curve."
Comprehensiveness of Interviews as Compared to One Concept Mapping Group	Interviewed patients participated for 1 day; Concept mapping patients participated for 3 days	The investigators will use a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze interview transcripts from one healthcare setting, with one of the codes being "goals". All ideas coded to "goals" that are in any way relevant to patients' diabetes care will be extracted to create a list of patient-important outcomes. The investigators will then determine the proportion of patient-important outcomes identified in the interviews from one healthcare setting that are present in the list of patient-important outcomes generated from the initial concept mapping group during the brainstorming session. The investigators will also identify the presence of unique outcomes found in each method.
Comprehensiveness of Interviews Compared to Three Concept Mapping Groups	Interviewed patients participated for 1 day; One group of concept mapping patients participated for 3 days	The investigators will use a qualitative content analysis approach to analyze interview transcripts, with one of the codes being "goals". All ideas coded to "goals" that are in any way relevant to patients' diabetes care will be extracted to create a list of patient-important outcomes. The investigators will then determine the proportion of patient-important outcomes identified in interviews that are present in an aggregate list of patient-important outcomes generated from the brainstorming session of all three concept mapping groups. The investigators will also identify the presence of additional patient-important outcomes in three concept mapping groups that were not identified in interviews.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Comparison of Method Efficiency in Terms of Time	Interviewed patients participated for 1 day; Concept mapping patients participated for 3 days	The investigators will assess the efficiency of implementation of the two methods, with efficiency including time required by researchers (team of 3) and patient-participants to complete each method. The investigators will compare the efficiency of conducting one concept mapping iteration (24 participants) to the efficiency of performing one set of interviews done to theme saturation (30 interviews). This efficiency analysis is structured for what would need to be budgeted in a grant application, and will provide useful information for general planning needs for method implementation.
Comparison of Method Efficiency in Terms of Cost	Interviewed patients participated for 1 day; Concept mapping patients participated for 3 days	The investigators will assess the efficiency of implementation of the two methods, with efficiency assessed by cost to complete a single concept mapping iteration (24 participants) and cost to complete one set of interviews performed to saturation (30 interviews). This efficiency analysis is structured for what would need to be budgeted in a grant application, and will provide useful information for general planning needs for method implementation.