Conectar
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents a public health burden, with high prevalence and significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence-based interventions exist, there is a need for more individualised care. The European project Individualised care from early risk of cardiovascular disease to established heart failure (iCARE4CVD) aims to personalise CVD prevention and treatment. Participatory health research, which actively involves patients in the planning, implementation and evaluation of projects, plays a crucial role here. However, patient participation is often unsuccessful due to the lack of a representative patient sample who is involved throughout the project’s duration, has knowledge of the project and can contribute their experience.
Participative Research for Individualised Care in Cardiovascular Diseases is a non-interventional, non-randomised, multicentre mixed-methods study. The aim is to incorporate patients’ insights into several key activities within iCARE4CVD by establishing country-specific patient panels in Belgium, Germany, Ireland and the UK. The primary objective is to identify patients’ preferences, experiences, requirements and needs for better diagnosis, treatment and self-care of CVD. Therefore, 10–12 patients across the CVD spectrum, from early risk to established CVD and heart failure, will be included in each country (40–48 in total). Over 3.5 years, patient panel members are required to complete four tasks: (1) identification of meaningful Patient-Reported Outcome and Experiences Measures, (2) development of a motivational model to increase adherence, (3) feedback on CVD care processes and (4) usability testing of new digital tools developed within iCARE4CVD. These tasks comprise eight activities in the form of paper-based or digital exercises, telephone surveys, written surveys and in-person focus groups. The results will be continuously incorporated into iCARE4CVD.
This study received ethical approval by the Ethics Committee at the Faculty of Medicine of RWTH Aachen University (EK 24-172) and St. Vincent’s University Hospital (RS24-027), Research Ethics Committee. In Geel and Belfast, positive ethics approval is pending. All participants will provide written informed consent prior to enrolment in the study and participation in the first patient panel task. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
DRKS00034899.
V2.1, 6 June 2024.
Many papers reporting on QI projects are not publishable for a variety of reasons. We compared manuscripts submitted as QI reports between June 2014 and June 2016 (prior to publication of the revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) with papers submitted to the American Journal of Nursing between July 2016 and December 2022). The aim was to evaluate any changes in the quality of manuscripts and identify problems that led to rejection; we also compared the quality of students with non-student submissions.
We conducted a non-randomized descriptive study to evaluate 349 papers submitted as QI project reports between June 2014 and December 2022 using screening templates based on the SQUIRE 2.0 checklist and findings of the INANE Working Group on Student Papers.
Manuscripts designated as QI reports accepted for publication increased from 4% during 2014–2016 (T1) to 14% during 2016–2022 (T2); one student submission was accepted. There was a slight decrease in submissions designated as QI that were not QI: 36% of student submissions during T1 and 31% of student submissions during T2. Among clinician submissions, 44% in T1 designated as QI reports were not QI versus 31% submitted during T2. There was a decrease in student submissions that followed the SQUIRE guidelines (36% during T1 to 24% during T2).
Findings demonstrate that by following the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, authors submit more complete manuscripts with fewer missing components. However, there are still misconceptions about what constitutes QI versus research and how to report QI initiatives. After comparing the findings from both periods, it is noteworthy that there is essentially the same level of inaccuracy and lack of acceptable manuscripts.
Sharing findings from QI activities through presentations and publications is a vital way of helping spread the learnings from these projects and improve health care for a wider audience. Clinicians, academicians, and students must understand the elements of the SQUIRE guidelines and ensure that this framework is used for both designing and submitting QI projects for publication.
FreshRSS 