Ploypun Narindrarangkura, Siroj Dejhansathit, Uzma Khan, Margaret Day, Suzanne A. Boren, Eduardo J. Simoes, Min S. Kim
{"title":"Developing and Evaluating SEE-Diabetes: A Patient-Centered Educational Decision Support System for Diabetes Care","authors":"Ploypun Narindrarangkura, Siroj Dejhansathit, Uzma Khan, Margaret Day, Suzanne A. Boren, Eduardo J. Simoes, Min S. Kim","doi":"10.1111/jep.14234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This feasibility study evaluated the effectiveness of Support-Engage-Empower-Diabetes (SEE-Diabetes), a patient-centered educational tool designed to promote shared decision-making of diabetes management in older adults. We aimed to assess SEE-Diabetes's ability to facilitate patient engagement and collaborative goal setting, as measured by the Observational Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). We hypothesized that these instruments would effectively differentiate between healthcare providers who actively leveraged SEE-Diabetes to guide patient-centric conversations and set goals compared to those who did not.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>SEE-Diabetes, developed through a 4-year user-centered design process, was employed in simulated clinical encounters at the University of Missouri Health Care. We conducted an analysis of 12 clinical encounters using video recordings. This analysis involved three simulated patients and four providers, two internals and two externals, utilizing a mixed-methods approach. We assessed the decision-making process using SEE-Diabetes by SDM-Q-Doc, OPTION scale, and conversation analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The average scores for the SDM-Q-Doc and the OPTION scale, out of a possible 100, were 52.6 and 75.9, respectively. Our findings revealed that active provider engagement with SEE-Diabetes during patient interactions served as an effective medium to facilitate shared decision-making and to set patient-centered goals. Providers who actively utilized SEE-Diabetes to guide conversations, ask open-ended questions, and incorporate patient input into goal setting demonstrated significantly higher OPTION and SDM-Q-Doc scores compared to those who used the tool less frequently or primarily for documentation purposes. Providers expressed positive feedback, highlighting its conciseness, patient-centricity, and optimism about integrating SEE-Diabetes into their future practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>SEE-Diabetes showed considerable promise in improving interactions between patients and providers, presenting an innovative approach to diabetes management for older adults. This tool has the potential to not only close communication gaps but also enable patients to take a more active role in their healthcare decisions.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14234","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives
This feasibility study evaluated the effectiveness of Support-Engage-Empower-Diabetes (SEE-Diabetes), a patient-centered educational tool designed to promote shared decision-making of diabetes management in older adults. We aimed to assess SEE-Diabetes's ability to facilitate patient engagement and collaborative goal setting, as measured by the Observational Patient Involvement (OPTION) scale and Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc). We hypothesized that these instruments would effectively differentiate between healthcare providers who actively leveraged SEE-Diabetes to guide patient-centric conversations and set goals compared to those who did not.
Methods
SEE-Diabetes, developed through a 4-year user-centered design process, was employed in simulated clinical encounters at the University of Missouri Health Care. We conducted an analysis of 12 clinical encounters using video recordings. This analysis involved three simulated patients and four providers, two internals and two externals, utilizing a mixed-methods approach. We assessed the decision-making process using SEE-Diabetes by SDM-Q-Doc, OPTION scale, and conversation analysis.
Results
The average scores for the SDM-Q-Doc and the OPTION scale, out of a possible 100, were 52.6 and 75.9, respectively. Our findings revealed that active provider engagement with SEE-Diabetes during patient interactions served as an effective medium to facilitate shared decision-making and to set patient-centered goals. Providers who actively utilized SEE-Diabetes to guide conversations, ask open-ended questions, and incorporate patient input into goal setting demonstrated significantly higher OPTION and SDM-Q-Doc scores compared to those who used the tool less frequently or primarily for documentation purposes. Providers expressed positive feedback, highlighting its conciseness, patient-centricity, and optimism about integrating SEE-Diabetes into their future practices.
Conclusion
SEE-Diabetes showed considerable promise in improving interactions between patients and providers, presenting an innovative approach to diabetes management for older adults. This tool has the potential to not only close communication gaps but also enable patients to take a more active role in their healthcare decisions.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.