Consumer Perspectives And Preferences Across The Trajectory Of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$307,946.00
Summary
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing health problem. An understanding of patient perspectives is important to alleviate the societal burden of CKD and improve patient survival, quality of life and health. This research will identify: information needs of patients with early-stage CKD, issues relevant to dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients, and patient preferences for organ allocation. I intend to achieve this by conducting interviews, focus groups and surveys with patients ac ....Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a growing health problem. An understanding of patient perspectives is important to alleviate the societal burden of CKD and improve patient survival, quality of life and health. This research will identify: information needs of patients with early-stage CKD, issues relevant to dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients, and patient preferences for organ allocation. I intend to achieve this by conducting interviews, focus groups and surveys with patients across Australia.Read moreRead less
Measuring Patient Preferences For Treatment Of Colorectal Cancer Using Discrete Choice Modelling
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$188,912.00
Summary
Around the world, governments, medical professional bodies, individual clinicians and patients are trying to make decisions in health care more rationally. More of these decisions are 'informed' by evidence-based medicine, which depends on a systematic review of all relevant evidence of acceptable scientific rigour. This kind of systematic review has been conducted for the management of colorectal cancer. Patients making choices about possible treatment for colorectal cancer will then have the b ....Around the world, governments, medical professional bodies, individual clinicians and patients are trying to make decisions in health care more rationally. More of these decisions are 'informed' by evidence-based medicine, which depends on a systematic review of all relevant evidence of acceptable scientific rigour. This kind of systematic review has been conducted for the management of colorectal cancer. Patients making choices about possible treatment for colorectal cancer will then have the best 'evidence-based' information to hand. But not enough is known about what aspects of the treatment options matter most to patients. Choosing between different treatment options involves weighing up or trading-off different factors associated with each therapy. Depending on the clinical stage of their cancer, patients may have to choose between the type and size of surgical operation, whether or not to have chemotherapy and-or radiotherapy, the side effects of treatment, the chance of a recurrence of the disease and an early death as well as their quality of life. This research project will ask patients who have already been treated for their colorectal cancer what kind of tradeoffs they make between factors such as disease-free survival, toxicity of treatment and longer term quality of life. This will be done using hypothetical clinical scenarios comparing one type of treatment to another. In this way, the hypothetical choices will be informed by the patient's experience with treatment without asking them to reflect or dwell directly on their own treatment choices. The answers to the hypothetical choice questions can be used to assess what factors in treatment are most important to patients and by how much. This information can then be used by clinicians when presenting evidence-based information on treatment for patients newly diagnosed colorectal cancer.Read moreRead less
Preparing Cancer Patients For Clinical Decision Making: A Randomised Trial Of Preconsultation Preparation Packages.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$228,427.00
Summary
Most cancer patients in Australia now expect and are told their cancer diagnosis. There is considerable variation in the extent to which patients are informed about treatment options and are involved in treatment decisions. It can be argued that a treatment decision should be based on the oncologist's knowledge and the patient's preference. Two possible models can achieve this optimal outcome: the oncologist decides treatment on the basis of information passed on to him-her from the patient (the ....Most cancer patients in Australia now expect and are told their cancer diagnosis. There is considerable variation in the extent to which patients are informed about treatment options and are involved in treatment decisions. It can be argued that a treatment decision should be based on the oncologist's knowledge and the patient's preference. Two possible models can achieve this optimal outcome: the oncologist decides treatment on the basis of information passed on to him-her from the patient (the enabled doctor), and the patient chooses treatment based on informaton provided by the doctor (the empowered patient). We have developed a booklet on 'how treatment decisions are made'. In a randomised trial, patients seeing an oncologist for the first time are given the booklet and shown a video of ' their' oncologist interviewing an actor patient. The subsequent consultation is audiotaped to study the effect of these interventions on patient and doctor behaviour. The results of this trial will inform the development of our new patient educational materials. We now plan to develop consultation preparation packages. Patients will be sent information at least 48 hours before their first appointment with an oncologist with the goal of helping patients to achieve their preferred involvement in the consultation. The complete package will contain four components : a booklet on how treatment decisions are made including an outline of the two treatment decision models, a question prompt sheet and recommendation to prepare a list of questions, a booklet on Patient Rights, and an introduction to the Cancer Centre. The effects of the total package, and of just the Cancer Centre component on patient preferences for information and involvement in medical decisions, their consultation behaviour, and patient and doctor satisfaction with decision making will be studied in a randomised trial with control patients receiving no preparatory materials.Read moreRead less
Electronic Decision Support For Osteoporosis Care To Assist Clinicians And Patients In Primary Care And Hospitals
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$598,570.00
Summary
Currently there is so much health information for doctors and consumers to sift through important health conditions can be missed. In a world first, a computer decision aid is being developed that will link risk factors for fracture and osteoporosis with the latest scientific evidence about investigations and treatment. It’s not just for doctors but also for the public; with a consumer decision aid being developed to place the latest scientific evidence about osteoporosis at your fingertips.
What Do Australians Think About Privacy And Participation In Epidemiological Research?
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$443,015.00
Summary
There is very little research available, in Australia or internationally, about what the general public considers privacy to be; or how important privacy protection is in the context of high and low risk epidemiological studies. We also know little about what affects willingness to participate in epidemiological research. Our research will provide an evidence base, and develop resources for the legislature, the NHMRC, ethics committees and researchers.
Understanding And Preventing Avoidable Readmissions: Development Of A Patient Centered And Disease Specific Screening Tool
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$100,000.00
Summary
This study aims to develop a screenings tool to prevent unplanned re-admissions, based on specific patient centred and disease specific factors. We will include index admission data (367,782 in 2015) of five MACH hospitals. The cohort will be divided into a group for index derivation and a group for internal validation. Variables on patient and admission characteristics are based on literature. After internal validation we will validate the tool externally and implement it in clinical practice
On TRACK (Teaching, Research And Community Knowledges) : CRE Promoting Brain Health With Older Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$3,000,000.00
Summary
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experience high rates of dementia at younger ages of onset, having far reaching consequences for the person, their family and their communities. The OnTRACK (Teaching, Research and Community Knowledges) Centre for Research Excellence will generate knowledge about culturally safe approaches to optimise the well being and quality of life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at risk of or living with dementia.
Health Care Priorities: The Community's Preferences For Using Community Preferences
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Funding Amount
$52,355.00
Summary
Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use ....Determining how health care resources should be allocated - often termed rationing or priority setting - has traditionally been carried out by health care personnel, usually doctors but increasingly managers. More recently there has been a move to involve the general public in this process. Much of the research in this area has focussed on the methods used to elicit community preferences. While this is an important area of investigation, a prior issue of how community members feel about the use of their preferences in informing health care priorities needs to be investigated. Four specific questions will be addressed in this study: (i) do members of the general public feel that, as individuals, they have a legitimate role to play in informing priority decisions in health care? if so why? if not, why not? (ii) does the nature-level-setting of the decisions for which priorities are to be set affect whether individual members of the public would wish to participate in the priority setting process? (e.g. different health services, medical procedures-treatments, diseases) (iii) whose preferences should be used if not the community's? (iv) faced ex post with the preferences of the community and the preferences (possibly different) of health service decision makers (i.e. Oexperts'), does this knowledge affect preferences for having community preferences count? A number of health authorities are currently looking for ways of engaging local communities in health care decision making. This study will indicate the appropriate levels at which community preferences are to be elicited and the type of decisions and settings in which they are most relevant.Read moreRead less