Abstract
Background: Patient-important outcomes (PIOs) reflect patient values and preferences. Prior studies have elicited a variety of PIOs for diabetes. However, no studies have examined whether, or how, PIOs differ across diabetes care settings. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequencies of PIOs derived from patients with diabetes in primary care (PC), acute care (emergency department (ED)), and post-acute care (post-hospital discharge (PHD)) settings within a large delivery system. Methods: This study was an analysis of 89 interviews with patients in PC, ED, and PHD settings. Participants had moderately to poorly controlled diabetes, defined as follows: presented to the ED with a diabetes-related problem, admitted to the hospital for a diabetes-related problem, or had at least two primary care measurements of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 7.5 in the prior year. A matrix analysis compared the frequencies of participants’ PIOs across the three settings. Results: Overall PIO frequencies were similar across care settings. PIOs fell into seven domains; all seven domains and 21 of the 26 PIOs were represented within each of the care settings. The most common PIOs included “be healthy”, “eat right”, and “reduce or get off medicines”. Conclusions: Participants identified similar PIOs in all care settings, indicating that recruitment from one or two care settings may often be sufficient for achieving saturation of PIOs. Furthermore, the results inform our understanding of patient priorities across the care continuum.
1. Introduction
As the healthcare system moves towards more patient-centered care, patient engagement is important to identify patient-important outcomes (PIOs). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been more commonly used as complements to clinical outcomes. In contrast, PIOs are outcomes grounded in individuals’ values and preferences [,,]. For example, traditional diabetes PROs have included treatment satisfaction and quality of life [,], while diabetes PIOs have included novel measures such as stopping medications and finding a cure for diabetes [,,].
An underexplored area of research is whether PIOs differ for patients recruited from different care settings, e.g., different environments where healthcare is provided. Historically, the U.S. healthcare system has been fragmented across many dimensions. In order to make this system more patient-centered, there have been calls to envision the health system as a continuum of care focused on patients’ experiences as they journey across different care settings rather than within just one setting [,].
The healthcare continuum occurs in several settings: wellness (prevention), pre-acute (monitoring, typically in primary care), acute (emergency or inpatient care), post-acute (post-emergency department/hospital discharge), and homecare (self-management) []. Patient experiences and priorities across the care continuum may vary based on their diagnosis, current health status, and illness trajectory. In particular, individuals with chronic illnesses such as diabetes will cycle between different illness periods. These periods include times of relative stability in their health status when they will engage mainly in primary care and self-management. At times, patients will transition from stability to periods of acute exacerbation and symptoms, during which they may utilize the emergency department and/or inpatient care. They will then transition back to periods of stability, forming a “circle of care” []. These changes may lead to shifting perspectives in which an individual’s illness moves between the foreground and background of their daily life []. These shifts in illness perspective may also lead to different patient priorities depending on their current health status and subsequent care setting.
Qualitative methods, particularly focus groups and interviews, have been extensively used to examine PIOs for chronic conditions [], for example, examining patients’ general and self-management priorities within one care setting, such as primary care [,,] or a community-based organization [,,,].
One study examined goal-setting and priorities among patients with diabetes transitioning from inpatient to outpatient care. The authors found that a minority of inpatient nurses established outpatient goals with patients, and these goals were inconsistently communicated to outpatient care teams []. To our knowledge, no studies have examined whether, or how, diabetes or other chronic illness PIOs differ across patients sampled from different healthcare settings. This information is vital to inform the design of future studies, as engagement of patients in certain healthcare settings may be easier than others, and data are needed to inform how PIOs change based upon the engagement setting.
In this study, we report a comparison of PIOs derived from patients with diabetes in primary care (PC), acute care (emergency department (ED)), and post-acute care (post-hospital discharge (PHD)) settings within a large delivery system. The findings offer insights to qualitative researchers on whether care setting and associated health status changes may influence PIOs. Furthermore, the results will inform our understanding of patient priorities across the care continuum, supporting more patient-centered goal-setting and care.
2. Materials and Methods
This is a secondary analysis of individual qualitative interview data from a study that compared the comprehensiveness and efficiency of semi-structured interviews to group concept mapping for eliciting patient-important diabetes outcomes. The full methods and results of this IRB-approved parent study have been described elsewhere []. The aim of this analysis is to identify how PIOs collected from three different health settings during the parent study (PC, ED, PHD) varied.
2.1. Sample
Individuals from an urban academic medical center in Philadelphia, PA, were eligible if they were age 18 or older, had a diagnosis of type 1 or type 2 diabetes, spoke English, and could provide informed consent. All participants had moderately to poorly controlled diabetes defined as one of the following: presented to the ED with a diabetes-related problem, admitted to the hospital for a diabetes-related problem, or had at least two primary care measurements of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 7.5 in the prior year. The definition of moderately to poorly controlled diabetes was developed by several primary care and emergency medicine physicians who were members of the study team.
The entire study was conducted in close collaboration with a Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board (PAKSAB). The PAKSAB included patients, advocates, and providers from diverse care pathway domains. Two members of the PAKSAB were research team members and participated in interview development, data collection, and analysis.
2.2. Data Collection
Individuals were identified using electronic medical records (EMR). All participants provided informed consent and were compensated $25. Research approval was obtained from Thomas Jefferson University’s Institutional Review Board. Demographic and medical information was collected by self-report from participants and an EMR review.
An open-ended, semi-structured interview guide was used to discuss outcomes most important to participants when making diabetes management decisions. The study team collaborated with the PAKSAB to develop the interview guide, which was further refined after a mock interview at a PAKSAB meeting. Interview questions asked were about participants’ beliefs (“What do you think diabetes is doing to your body?”), their diabetes care challenges (“When thinking about your diabetes, what worries or concerns do you have?”), and their care goals (“What are your goals for your treatment?”) []. Interviews were conducted in person or over the phone, audio recorded, and transcribed professionally with identifying information removed. Interviews were conducted in each healthcare setting until thematic saturation was reached.
2.3. Analyses
Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11.0 (Denver, CO, USA). Interview analysis for the parent study was conducted using a conventional content analysis approach []. Three members of the research team independently coded interviews and one third were randomly double coded throughout the coding process to assess and confirm interrater reliability. We used standards for double-coding by O’Connor & Joffe [] and standards by Cohen [] and McHugh [] to set thresholds for kappa and percent agreement that would determine sufficient inter-coder reliability. Our minimum κ coefficient was 0.6, and our target was 0.8. Our average percentage of agreement was 97%; the research team developed a codebook by independently coding a subsection of transcripts within each setting. Coders analyzed the remaining transcripts with the established codebook, meeting frequently to review coding, resolve discrepancies, and refine the codebook iteratively.
To identify discrete goals, we further analyzed data coded to the “goals” code. The study team worked with the PAKSAB to categorize the identified goals from this code into overarching PIOs and broader domains. This resulted in 26 PIOs across 7 domains []. We then performed a descriptive analysis of the PIOs using a matrix analysis to compare PIO frequencies. Comparison of coding frequencies is a well-established approach for analyzing large qualitative datasets []. A matrix was created with domains, PIOs, and goals in rows and the healthcare setting in which the participants were engaged during research recruitment (e.g., PC, ED, and PHD) in columns. The number of participants who mentioned a PIO in interviews were calculated for each care setting.
3. Results
Demographics of the 89 interview participants can be found in Table 1 []. Mean age was 54.6 years. Most participants were Black (68.0%), female (55%), and completed high school as their highest level of education (76.0%). Nearly all (95.5%) had type 2 diabetes, and 83.0% had lived with diabetes for more than five years. The mean HbA1c was 10.2 percent.
Table 1.
Participant Demographics (n = 89).
Table 2 reports the frequency of PIOs by care setting, organized by PIO domain. Overall, PIO frequencies were similar across care settings. All seven domains and 21 of the 26 PIOs were represented within each of the care settings. The following provides details of results, by domain.
Table 2.
Frequency of patient-important goals, outcomes, and domains by care setting.
Within the “Achieve measurable goals” domain, participants across all care settings cited three of the PIOs—“Control daily blood sugar”, “Control diabetes”, and “Lose weight”—as important care goals, with controlling blood sugar and diabetes, overall, being mentioned slightly more frequently by ED and PHD participants. One PIO—“Achieve A1c goals”—arose in the PC and ED settings, though not PHD.
PIOs within the domains of “Best utilize medical/professional services” and “Learning about diabetes” were less frequently identified overall. The PIO mentioned most often was “Minimize hospital, emergency dept., and doctor visits”, particularly among ED and PHD participants.
The domains of “Manage diet” and “Manage medications” both occurred frequently across health settings. Participants in all settings commonly cited “Eat right” as a PIO in the “Manage diet” domain. Within “Manage medications”, the most common PIO across all three settings was “Reduce or get off medicines”, followed by “Eliminate injections”.
“Optimize daily self-care” is the domain with the most PIOs, including the broad, widely mentioned PIO “Be healthy,” and other common PIOs including “Be active”, and “Live like a person who does not have diabetes”. There were a few PIOs with minimal use that did not occur in every setting, including “Access alternative treatments” (not in PC or PHD), “Establish a routine” (not in PC), “Minimize symptoms” (not in PC or PHD), and “Reduce stress” (not in PHD).
Finally, in the “Optimize long-term health” domain, all PIOs were represented across all settings. “Get rid of diabetes”, “Prevent complications”, and “Live longer” were frequently mentioned in all settings, although “Get rid of diabetes” and “Prevent complications” were more frequently voiced in the ED and PHD groups, and “Live longer” was more common in the ED group.
The ten most common PIOs across settings are reported in Table 3. The most common PIOs overall were “Be healthy”, “Control diabetes”, and “Control daily blood sugar”.
Table 3.
Ten most common PIOs across settings.
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to compare PIOs by recruitment setting. In our matrix analysis of interviews with patients with primarily type 2 diabetes recruited from PC, ED, and PHD settings, we found that participants across settings reported similar PIOs within seven common domains. All domains and the majority of the PIOs were represented within each health setting.
When looking at the PIOs that were not included across each health setting, there are a few critical findings. While “Achieve A1c goals” (within the “Achieve measurable goals” domain) was not included in PHD, “Control diabetes” (general/overall control) was one of the most frequent PIO among PHD patients. As HbA1c is a primary marker of disease control, this concept was arguably still captured within the PHD setting. The other six PIOs that were not included in all settings had very few references, suggesting that they were of less universal importance. There were three PIOs—“Maximize health insurance”, “Get on an insulin pump”, and “Establish a routine”—that were missing in one setting and only had one reference each in the other two settings. Similarly, there was one PIO—“Access alternative treatments”—that was missing in two settings (PC and PHD) and had only two references in ED. The final two PIOs had the most variability with overall low frequencies. These were “Minimize symptoms”, which had five references in the ED though they did not arise in PC and PHD, and “Reduce stress” which did not arise in PHD though had one reference in PC and three in the ED.
Overall, the most common PIOs within all settings fell under the domains of “Achieve measurable goals”, “Manage diet”, “Manage medications”, “Optimize daily self-care”, and “Optimize long-term health”. Some differences did emerge in the frequencies of PIO mentioned for PC. For example, ED and PHD patients more frequently mentioned wanting better blood sugar control and general diabetes control, reducing medical visits, preventing complications, and getting rid of diabetes. These findings may reflect that these patients had recent emergency or inpatient care for their diabetes, so they may feel less control over their illness and have more worries about complications than those patients with diabetes recruited from primary care. However, these outcomes were all mentioned by PC participants, so they are still relevant across care locations.
Our findings further add to the literature on qualitative participant recruitment by comparing PIOs from patients recruited across a range of care settings. We demonstrate that the vast majority of PIOs, and the most common PIOs, arose from participants in all three care settings. These findings suggest that for studies that involve eliciting perspectives from participants across care settings or the continuum of disease, recruitment from one or two care settings may often be sufficient for achieving saturation of PIOs. This could allow researchers to increase study efficiency while still collecting rich data.
Our study has limitations. First, our analysis was a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data. Although the analysis reported in this manuscript was not part of the original study’s objectives, it utilized coding generated during the primary study in which multiple steps were taken to ensure rigor in the coding process, including multiple coders, an audit trail, and member checking through the review of findings by our Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board (PCORI final research report). Additionally, interviews were conducted either by phone or in person, which may have affected participant responses. Our study also included individuals with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which can have different disease trajectories and potentially different PIOs. Finally, our participants consisted of a convenience sample of patients in one health system, most of whom were Black and female, and consisted primarily of patients with type 2 diabetes. Our sample limits the generalizability of our findings; a broader range of health systems and demographic categories is ideal, and PIOs for other health conditions should also be examined. Nevertheless, the findings provide valuable information on similarities and differences in diabetes PIOs across primary care, emergency care, and post-hospital discharge.
5. Conclusions
Participants identified similar PIOs for diabetes in all care settings, indicating that recruitment from one or two care settings may often be sufficient for achieving saturation of PIOs. Furthermore, the results inform our understanding of patient priorities across the care continuum. By eliciting patient priorities, this work support the design of further patient-centered research and care.
Author Contributions
K.L.R., A.T.G. and A.T.C. authors participated substantially in the design and execution of the study. All authors (K.L.R., A.T.G., A.T.C., P.A., J.E.H., M.D.L., A.M.B.D., G.D.M. and B.C.) participated in data analysis and manuscript preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®) Award (award number ME-1503-28476). The statements presented in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute® (PCORI®), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
We thank the members of our Patient and Key Stakeholders Advisory Board (PAKSAB) for their assistance in designing and conducting this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| BMI | Body mass index |
| ED | Emergency department |
| EMR | Electronic medical record |
| HbA1C | Hemoglobin A1c |
| PAKSAB | Patient and Key Stakeholder Advisory Board |
| PC | Primary care |
| PHD | Post-hospital discharge |
| PIO | Patient-important outcomes |
| PRO | Patient-reported outcomes |
References
- Guyatt, G.; Montori, V.; Devereaux, P.J.; Schünemann, H.; Bhandari, M. Patients at the Center: In Our Practice, and in Our Use of Language. ACP J. Club 2004, 140, A11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinglas, V.D.; Faraone, L.N.; Needham, D.M. Understanding Patient-Important Outcomes after Critical Illness. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2018, 24, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murad, M.H.; Shah, N.D.; Van Houten, H.K.; Ziegenfuss, J.Y.; Deming, J.R.; Beebe, T.J.; Smith, S.A.; Guyatt, G.H.; Montori, V.M. Individuals with Diabetes Preferred That Future Trials Use Patient-Important Outcomes and Provide Pragmatic Inferences. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 743–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saisho, Y. Use of Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire in Diabetes Care: Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marrero, D.G.; Hilliard, M.E.; Maahs, D.M.; McAuliffe-Fogarty, A.H.; Hunter, C.M. Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Diabetes Research and Practice: Recommendations from a National Workshop. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2019, 153, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, A.T.; Arefi, P.; Gentsch, A.T.; Mills, G.D.; LaNoue, M.D.; Doty, A.M.B.; Carr, B.G.; Hollander, J.E.; Rising, K.L. Patient Markers of Successful Diabetes Management. Diabetes Spectr. 2021, 34, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gopalan, A.; Kellom, K.; McDonough, K.; Schapira, M.M. Exploring How Patients Understand and Assess Their Diabetes Control. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2018, 18, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S.T.; Akohoue, S.A.; Brooks, M.A. Identification of Patient-Centered Outcomes among African American Women with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2014, 106, 487–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- NOBEL Project. The Continuum of Care. Nobel-Project.eu. Available online: https://nobel-project.eu/the-strategy/the-continuum-of-care/ (accessed on 17 November 2025).
- Evashwick, C. Creating the Continuum of Care. Health Matrix 2025, 7, 30–39. [Google Scholar]
- Santana, M.J.; Manalili, K.; Jolley, R.J.; Zelinsky, S.; Quan, H.; Lu, M. How to Practice Person-Centred Care: A Conceptual Framework. Health Expect. 2018, 21, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lansang, M.C. The Circle of Care in Diabetes: From Home to Hospital to Home. Endocr. Pract. 2018, 24, 1012–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paterson, B.L. The Shifting Perspectives Model of Chronic Illness. Stud. Organ. Deliv. Health Serv. 2001, 33, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandermause, R.; Barg, F.K.; Esmail, L.; Edmundson, L.; Girard, S.; Perfetti, A.R. Qualitative Methods in Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. Qual. Health Res. 2016, 27, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morrow, A.S.; Haidet, P.; Skinner, J.; Naik, A.D. Integrating Diabetes Self-Management with the Health Goals of Older Adults: A Qualitative Exploration. Patient Educ. Couns. 2008, 72, 418–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beverly, E.A.; Wray, L.A.; LaCoe, C.L.; Gabbay, R.A. Listening to Older Adults’ Values and Preferences for Type 2 Diabetes Care: A Qualitative Study. Diabetes Spectr. 2014, 27, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klinkner, G.E.; Yaeger, K.M.; Brenny-Fitzpatrick, M.T.; Vorderstrasse, A.A. Improving Diabetes Self-Management Support: Goal-Setting across the Continuum of Care. Clin. Diabetes 2017, 35, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Svedbo Engström, M.; Leksell, J.; Johansson, U.-B.; Gudbjörnsdottir, S. What Is Important for You? A Qualitative Interview Study of Living with Diabetes and Experiences of Diabetes Care to Establish a Basis for a Tailored Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for the Swedish National Diabetes Register. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lafontaine, S.; Bourgault, P.; Girard, A.; Ellefsen, E. Dimensions, Application, and Outcomes of Person-Centered Self-Management Interventions for Those Living with Type 2 Diabetes: A Scoping Review. Patient Educ. Couns. 2020, 103, 1961–1982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rising, K.L.; LaNoue, M.; Gentsch, A.T.; Doty, A.M.B.; Cunningham, A.; Carr, B.G.; Hollander, J.E.; Latimer, L.; Loebell, L.; Weingarten, G.; et al. The Power of the Group: Comparison of Interviews and Group Concept Mapping for Identifying Patient-Important Outcomes of Care. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019, 19, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rising, K.; LaNoue, M.; Gentsch, A.; Doty, A.; Cunningham, A.; Carr, B.; Hollander, J.; Latimer, L.; Mills, G. Comparing Two Ways to Identify What’s Important to Patients in Research. 2020. Available online: https://www.pcori.org/research-results/2015/comparing-two-ways-identify-whats-important-patients-research (accessed on 23 November 2025).
- Hsieh, H.F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Connor, C.; Joffe, H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2020, 19, 1609406919899220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1960, 20, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHugh, M.L. Interrater Reliability: The Kappa Statistic. Biochem. Medica 2012, 22, 276–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rising, K.L.; Gentsch, A.T.; Mills, G.; LaNoue, M.; Doty, A.M.B.; Cunningham, A.; Carr, B.G.; Hollander, J.E. Patient-Important Outcomes to Inform Shared Decision Making and Goal Setting for Diabetes Treatment. Patient Educ. Couns. 2021, 104, 2592–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guest, G. Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research; Altamira: Lanham, MD, USA, 2008; Available online: http://lib.uok.ac.ir:8080/site/catalogue/218797 (accessed on 17 November 2025).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).