Mark McKone
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Mark McKone has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Kathryn W. Ruckart
Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
2 shared publications Annalize Sussman
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC
1 shared publication- Courteney McClutchy
College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville 32611, Florida
1 shared publication Isabella Cornea
School of Medicine, Section of Gerontology and Geriatrics Wake Forest University Winston‐Salem North Carolina USA
1 shared publicationJacline G. Phillips
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
1 shared publication- Jennifer Gabbard
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Gerontology (A.Z., J.B., J.G.), Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 28 January 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Voice
The Efficacy of Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block for Chronic Cough: A Scoping Review
- 28 January 2025
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Voice
The Efficacy of Superior Laryngeal Nerve Block for Chronic Cough: A Scoping Review
- 15 April 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Voice
- Vol. 40 (4) , 1102-1109
Efficacy of Speech-Language Pathology Interventions for Globus Pharyngeus: A Scoping Review
- 15 April 2024
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Voice
- Vol. 40 (4) , 1102-1109
Efficacy of Speech-Language Pathology Interventions for Globus Pharyngeus: A Scoping Review
- Open Access
- 13 July 2023
- Published by Wiley in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Vol. 71 (11) , 3595-3608
Evaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review
Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real‐world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics. Methods: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer‐reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care). Results: We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty‐four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty‐one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% ( n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease. Conclusions: In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.
- 13 July 2023
- Published by Wiley in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Vol. 71 (11) , 3595-3608
Open AccessEvaluating the pragmatic characteristics of advance care planning outcome measures in dementia clinical trials: A scoping review
Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that involves discussing a person's goals, values, and preferences; it is particularly important for persons living with dementia (PLWD) given that dementia is incurable and progressive. To ensure results that will impact real‐world practices, ACP outcome measures must be psychometrically strong, meaningful to key partners, and pragmatic to collect. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of outcome measures utilized in ACP randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) enrolling PLWD or their care partners and evaluated their pragmatic characteristics. Methods: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for peer‐reviewed ACP RCTs enrolling PLWD or their care partners from 2011 to 2021. We abstracted characteristics of primary and secondary outcome measures, including pragmatic characteristics using an adapted Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale and ACP outcome domains using the standardized ACP Outcome Framework (i.e., process, action, healthcare, or quality of care). Results: We included 21 ACP RCTs. Trials included 103 outcome measures (39 primary and 64 secondary), of which 11% measured process, 14% measured action, 49% measured healthcare, and 26% measured quality of care. Twenty‐four (23%) outcome measures were highly pragmatic, the majority of which (67%) reflected healthcare outcome measures. Sixty‐one (59%) outcomes were assessed as highly relevant to PLWD or their care partners. Only 20% ( n = 21) of outcome measures were embedded into clinical practice. Most (62%) RCTs were conducted in nursing homes, and 33% were focused PLWD with advanced stage disease. Conclusions: In RCTs testing ACP interventions to support PLWD, only 23% of outcome measures were highly pragmatic, and most of these measured healthcare utilizations. Outcome assessments were rarely integrated into the EHR during routine clinical care. New outcome measures that address the lived experience of PLWD and their care partners plus have high pragmatic characteristics are needed for embedded pragmatic clinical trials.