The power of the group: comparison of interviews and group concept mapping for identifying patient-important outcomes of care

Kristin L Rising, Marianna LaNoue, Alexzandra T Gentsch, Amanda M B Doty, Amy Cunningham, Brendan G Carr, Judd E Hollander, Lori Latimer, Larry Loebell, Gail Weingarten, Neva White, Geoffrey Mills, Kristin L Rising, Marianna LaNoue, Alexzandra T Gentsch, Amanda M B Doty, Amy Cunningham, Brendan G Carr, Judd E Hollander, Lori Latimer, Larry Loebell, Gail Weingarten, Neva White, Geoffrey Mills

Abstract

Background: Data are limited regarding how to effectively and efficiently identify patient priorities for research or clinical care. Our goal was to compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of group concept mapping (GCM), a group participatory method, to interviews for identifying patient goals when seeking care.

Methods: We engaged patients with moderately- to poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus in either GCM or an individual interview. The primary outcome was the comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming (the first stage of GCM) as compared to interviews for eliciting patient-important outcomes (PIOs) related to seeking care. Secondary outcomes included 1) comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming and interviews compared to a master list of PIOs and 2) efficiency of GCM brainstorming, the entire GCM process and interviews.

Results: We engaged 89 interview participants and 52 GCM participants (across 3 iterations of GCM) to identify outcomes most important to patients when making decisions related to diabetes management. We identified 26 PIOs in interviews, 33 PIOs in the first GCM brainstorming session, and 38 PIOs across all three GCM brainstorming sessions. The initial GCM brainstorming session identified 77% (20/26) of interview PIOs, and all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions combined identified 88% (23/26). When comparing GCM brainstorming and interviews to the master list of PIOs, the initial GCM brainstorming sessions identified 80% (33/41), all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions identified 93% (38/41) and interviews identified 63% (26/41) of all PIOs. Compared to interviews, GCM brainstorming required less research team time, more patient time, and had a lowest cost. The entire GCM process still required less research team time than interviews, though required more patient time and had a higher cost than interviews.

Conclusions: GCM brainstorming is a powerful tool for effectively and efficiently identifying PIOs in certain scenarios, though it does not provide the breadth and depth of individual interviews or the higher level conceptual organization of the complete process of GCM. Selection of the optimal method for patient engagement should include consideration of multiple factors including depth of patient input desired, research team expertise, resources, and the population to be engaged.

Trial registration: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 6/2/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 6/8/2016. Data collection began on 4/29/2016.

Keywords: Brainstorming; Group concept mapping; Interviews; Outcome elicitation; Patient engagement; Patient-centered outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Thomas Jefferson (15G.667). All participants provided written informed consent prior to study participation.

Consent for publication

N/A

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Murad MH, Shah ND, Van Houten H, Ziegenfuss JY, Deming JR, Beebe TJ, et al. Individuals with diabetes preferred that future trials use patient-important outcomes and provide pragmatic inferences. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:743–748. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.005.
    1. Guyatt G, Montori VM, Devereaux P, Schunemann H, Bhandari M. Patients at the Centre: in our practice, and in our use of language. BMJ evidence-based Med. 2004;9(1):6–7. doi: 10.1136/ebm.9.1.6.
    1. Dinglas VD, Faraone LN, Needham DM. Understanding patient-important outcomes after critical illness. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(5):401–409. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000533.
    1. Deshpande P, Bl S, Rajan S, Abdul Nazir C. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2011;2(4):137. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.86879.
    1. Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(5):559–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x.
    1. Rat AC, Pouchot J, Guillemin F, Baumann M, Retel-Rude N, Spitz E, et al. Content of quality-of-life instruments is affected by item-generation methods. Int J Qual Heal Care. 2007;19(6):390–398. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm040.
    1. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity - establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 2 - assessing respondent understanding. Value Heal. 2011;14(8):978–988. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013.
    1. Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M, Abetz L, Arnould B, Bayliss M, et al. PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(8):1087–1096. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9677-6.
    1. Holloway I. Qualitative research in health care. 1st ed. Berkshire, England: Open University Press; 2005.
    1. Powell R, Single H. Focus groups. Int J Qual Heal Care. 1996;8(5):499–504. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/8.5.499.
    1. Sim J. Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. J Adv Nurs. 1998;28(2):345–352. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00692.x.
    1. Trochim WMK, Milstein B, Wood BJ, Jackson S, Pressler V. Setting objectives for community and systems change: an application of concept mapping for planning a statewide health improvement initiative. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5(Act 304):8–19. doi: 10.1177/1524839903258020.
    1. Trochim WMK, Cook JA, Setze RJ. Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staff’s views of a supported employment program for individuals with severe mental illness. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62(4):766–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.766.
    1. Burke JG, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, K a MD, Trochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(10):1392–1410. doi: 10.1177/1049732305278876.
    1. L a A, Day KL, Vandenberg AE. Using a concept map as a tool for strategic planning: the healthy brain initiative. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(5):A117.
    1. Rosas SR, Kane M. Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann. 2012;35(2):236–245. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.10.003.
    1. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Chinman MJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, Proctor EK, et al. Expert recommendations for implementing change (ERIC): protocol for a mixed methods study. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):39. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-39.
    1. Vinson CA. Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework for creating virtual communities of practice to translate cancer research into practice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11(4):E68.
    1. Haque N, Rosas S. Concept mapping of Photovoices. Fam Community Heal. 2010;33(3):193–206. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181e4bbf0.
    1. Brennan LK, Brownson RC, Kelly C, Ivey MK, Leviton LC. Concept mapping: Priority community strategies to create changes to support active living. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(5):S337–S350. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.07.015.
    1. Stillman F, Schmitt C, Rosas S. Opportunity for collaboration: a conceptual model of success in tobacco control and Cancer prevention. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;9(1):1–8.
    1. Trochim W, Kane M. Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Healthc. 2005;17(3):187–191. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzi038.
    1. LaNoue M, Mills G, Cunningham A, Sharbaugh A. Concept mapping as a method to engage patients in clinical quality improvement. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14(4):370–376. doi: 10.1370/afm.1929.
    1. Humphrey L, Willgoss T, Trigg A, Meysner S, Kane M, Dickinson S, et al. A comparison of three methods to generate a conceptual understanding of a disease based on the patients’ perspective. J Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2017;1(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0013-6.
    1. Rising KL, Doyle SK, Powell RE, Doty AMB, LaNoue M, Gerolamo AM. Use of Group Concept Mapping to Identify Patient Domains of Uncertainty That Contribute to Emergency Department Use. J Emerg Nurs. 2018;Epub ahead. Available from: 10.1016/j.jen.2018.05.015
    1. Iris M, DeBacker NA, Benner R, Hammerman J, Ridings J. Creating a quality of life assessment measure for residents in long term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2012;13(5):438–447. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.08.011.
    1. Rosas SR, Ridings JW. The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: application and future directions. Eval Program Plann. 2017;60:265–276. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.016.
    1. Shaya FT, Yan X, Lin PJ, Simoni-Wastila L, Bron M, Baran R, et al. US trends in glycemic control, treatment, and comorbidity burden in patients with diabetes. J Clin Hypertens. 2010;12(10):826–832. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2010.00365.x.
    1. McBrien KA, Naugler C, Ivers N, Weaver RG, Campbell D, Desveaux L, et al. Barriers to care in patients with diabetes and poor glycemic control-a cross-sectional survey. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0176135. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176135.
    1. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods. 2006;18(1):59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
    1. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Burlington, VT. Version 11, 2015.
    1. Trochim WMK. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 1989;12(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5.
    1. The Concept System® Global MAX™ [Web-based Platform]. Concept Systems Incorporated. Ithaca, NY. 2016. Available from .
    1. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Stoyanov S, Kirchner P. Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive E-learning: ALFANET project case. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2004;52(2):41–54. doi: 10.1007/BF02504838.
    1. Coenen M, Stamm TA, Stucki G, Cieza A. Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(2):359–370. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9943-2.
    1. Howarth AR, Day S, Greene L, Ward H. “They made me feel comfortable”: a comparison of methods to measure patient experience in a sexual health clinic. BMC health Serv res. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2264-6.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren