Assessing Social Circumstances in Primary Care: Expert Consensus via Delphi Technique.

Junki Mizumoto, Toshichika Mitsuyama, Satoshi Kondo, Masashi Izumiya, Shoko Horita, Masato Eto
{"title":"Assessing Social Circumstances in Primary Care: Expert Consensus via Delphi Technique.","authors":"Junki Mizumoto,&nbsp;Toshichika Mitsuyama,&nbsp;Satoshi Kondo,&nbsp;Masashi Izumiya,&nbsp;Shoko Horita,&nbsp;Masato Eto","doi":"10.22454/PRiMER.2023.765336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>In the Japanese primary care setting, a set of questions to screen patients' social circumstances has never been developed in a scientific manner. This project aimed to reach a consensus among diverse experts to develop a set of such questions, to meet the need for assessing patients' health-related social circumstances.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a Delphi technique to generate expert consensus. The expert panel was composed of various clinical professionals, medical trainees, researchers, support members for marginalized people, and patients. We conducted multiple rounds of communication online. In round 1, the participants provided their opinions about what health care professionals should ask to assess patients' social circumstances in primary care settings. These data were analyzed into several themes. In round 2, all themes were confirmed by consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-one people participated in the panel. All participants completed the rounds. Six themes were generated and confirmed: economic condition and employment, access to health care and other services, living in everyday life and leisure time, total physiological needs, tools and technology, and history of the patient's life. In addition, the panelists emphasized the importance of respecting the patient's preferences and values.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A questionnaire, abbreviated by the acronym of HEALTH+P, was developed. Further research about its clinical feasibility and impact on patient outcomes is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":74494,"journal":{"name":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","volume":"7 ","pages":"765336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9957451/pdf/primer-7-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2023.765336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective: In the Japanese primary care setting, a set of questions to screen patients' social circumstances has never been developed in a scientific manner. This project aimed to reach a consensus among diverse experts to develop a set of such questions, to meet the need for assessing patients' health-related social circumstances.

Methods: We used a Delphi technique to generate expert consensus. The expert panel was composed of various clinical professionals, medical trainees, researchers, support members for marginalized people, and patients. We conducted multiple rounds of communication online. In round 1, the participants provided their opinions about what health care professionals should ask to assess patients' social circumstances in primary care settings. These data were analyzed into several themes. In round 2, all themes were confirmed by consensus.

Results: Sixty-one people participated in the panel. All participants completed the rounds. Six themes were generated and confirmed: economic condition and employment, access to health care and other services, living in everyday life and leisure time, total physiological needs, tools and technology, and history of the patient's life. In addition, the panelists emphasized the importance of respecting the patient's preferences and values.

Conclusion: A questionnaire, abbreviated by the acronym of HEALTH+P, was developed. Further research about its clinical feasibility and impact on patient outcomes is warranted.

评估社会环境在初级保健:专家共识通过德尔菲技术。
背景与目的:在日本的初级保健设置中,一套筛查患者社会环境的问题从未以科学的方式发展。该项目旨在在不同专家之间达成共识,制定一套此类问题,以满足评估患者与健康有关的社会环境的需要。方法:采用德尔菲法征求专家意见。专家小组由各种临床专业人员、医疗培训生、研究人员、边缘化人群支持成员和患者组成。我们在网上进行了多轮沟通。在第一轮中,参与者提供了他们对卫生保健专业人员在初级保健环境中应该要求评估患者社会环境的意见。这些数据被分析成几个主题。在第二轮中,所有主题都得到一致确认。结果:61人参加了小组讨论。所有参与者都完成了回合。产生并确认了六个主题:经济状况和就业,获得医疗保健和其他服务的机会,日常生活和闲暇时间的生活,总生理需求,工具和技术以及患者的生活史。此外,小组成员强调了尊重患者偏好和价值观的重要性。结论:编制了一份调查问卷,简称HEALTH+P。进一步研究其临床可行性和对患者预后的影响是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信