Improving Health for People Living With Heart Failure: Focus Group Study of Preconditions for Co-Production of Health and Care.

Q2 Medicine
Anne-Marie Suutari, Johan Thor, Annika M M Nordin, Sofia Kjellström, Kristina Areskoug Josefsson
{"title":"Improving Health for People Living With Heart Failure: Focus Group Study of Preconditions for Co-Production of Health and Care.","authors":"Anne-Marie Suutari,&nbsp;Johan Thor,&nbsp;Annika M M Nordin,&nbsp;Sofia Kjellström,&nbsp;Kristina Areskoug Josefsson","doi":"10.2196/27125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-production of health and care involving patients, families of patients, and professionals in care processes can create joint learning about how to meet patients' needs. Although barriers and facilitators to co-production have been examined previously in various health care contexts, the preconditions in Swedish chronic cardiac care contexts are yet to be explored. This study is set in the health system of the Swedish region of Jönköping County and is part of system-wide efforts to promote better health for persons with heart failure (HF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to test the usefulness of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model when assessing the barriers to and facilitators of co-production of health and care perceived by patients with HF, family members of patients with HF, and professionals in a Swedish chronic cardiac care context as a guide for subsequent initiatives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data collection involved 1 focus group interview (FGI) with patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with family members of patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with professionals in primary care (n=7), and 1 FGI with professionals in cardiac care (n=4). In addition, patients with HF kept diaries of their thoughts regarding co-production. Using a deductive approach to content analysis, underpinned by the COM-B model, barriers and facilitators were categorized into capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to co-produce health and care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The participants showed limited understanding of co-production as a practice. They appeared to view it as a privilege to be offered to patients on top of traditional care and rarely as an approach for improving health care processes. The interviews revealed the limited health literacy among patients and the struggle of professionals to convey health information to these patients. Co-production was considered to be more resource-intensive than traditional care. Different expectations of stakeholders' roles were revealed: professionals expected older patients not to want to co-produce health and care, and all participants expected professionals to be in charge of health care services. The family members' position involved trying to balance their desire to support their relatives with understanding when, how, and with whom to co-produce. Presumed benefits motivated stakeholders: co-production was recognized to motivate patients to improve self-care. However, the participants recognized that motivation to get involved in health and care decisions varies over time among stakeholders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Co-production can be facilitated by the stakeholders' motivation. However, varying levels of understanding of co-production, patients' limited health literacy, unease with power sharing between patients and professionals, and resource constraints are barriers that need to be managed to promote co-produced care and better health for persons living with HF. Further research is warranted to explore how to co-produce health care services with patients with HF and how leaders can facilitate the inevitable cultural change it requires and represents.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"e27125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150411/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/27125","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Co-production of health and care involving patients, families of patients, and professionals in care processes can create joint learning about how to meet patients' needs. Although barriers and facilitators to co-production have been examined previously in various health care contexts, the preconditions in Swedish chronic cardiac care contexts are yet to be explored. This study is set in the health system of the Swedish region of Jönköping County and is part of system-wide efforts to promote better health for persons with heart failure (HF).

Objective: The objective of this study was to test the usefulness of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model when assessing the barriers to and facilitators of co-production of health and care perceived by patients with HF, family members of patients with HF, and professionals in a Swedish chronic cardiac care context as a guide for subsequent initiatives.

Methods: Data collection involved 1 focus group interview (FGI) with patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with family members of patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with professionals in primary care (n=7), and 1 FGI with professionals in cardiac care (n=4). In addition, patients with HF kept diaries of their thoughts regarding co-production. Using a deductive approach to content analysis, underpinned by the COM-B model, barriers and facilitators were categorized into capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to co-produce health and care.

Results: The participants showed limited understanding of co-production as a practice. They appeared to view it as a privilege to be offered to patients on top of traditional care and rarely as an approach for improving health care processes. The interviews revealed the limited health literacy among patients and the struggle of professionals to convey health information to these patients. Co-production was considered to be more resource-intensive than traditional care. Different expectations of stakeholders' roles were revealed: professionals expected older patients not to want to co-produce health and care, and all participants expected professionals to be in charge of health care services. The family members' position involved trying to balance their desire to support their relatives with understanding when, how, and with whom to co-produce. Presumed benefits motivated stakeholders: co-production was recognized to motivate patients to improve self-care. However, the participants recognized that motivation to get involved in health and care decisions varies over time among stakeholders.

Conclusions: Co-production can be facilitated by the stakeholders' motivation. However, varying levels of understanding of co-production, patients' limited health literacy, unease with power sharing between patients and professionals, and resource constraints are barriers that need to be managed to promote co-produced care and better health for persons living with HF. Further research is warranted to explore how to co-produce health care services with patients with HF and how leaders can facilitate the inevitable cultural change it requires and represents.

Abstract Image

改善心力衰竭患者的健康:健康与护理共同生产的先决条件焦点小组研究。
背景:涉及患者、患者家属和护理过程中的专业人员的卫生和护理的共同生产可以创造关于如何满足患者需求的共同学习。虽然以前已经在各种卫生保健环境中审查了合作生产的障碍和促进因素,但瑞典慢性心脏护理环境的先决条件尚未探索。这项研究是在瑞典Jönköping县地区的卫生系统中进行的,是促进心力衰竭(HF)患者健康的全系统努力的一部分。目的:本研究的目的是测试能力、机会和动机行为(COM-B)模型在评估心衰患者、心衰患者家属和瑞典慢性心脏护理专业人员认为的健康和护理共同生产的障碍和促进因素时的有效性,作为后续举措的指导。方法:对HF患者进行1次焦点小组访谈(FGI) (n=5),对HF患者家属进行1次焦点小组访谈(FGI) (n=5),对初级保健专业人员进行1次焦点小组访谈(FGI) (n=7),对心脏护理专业人员进行1次焦点小组访谈(FGI) (n=4)。此外,心衰患者还会记录下他们对合拍片的想法。在COM-B模型的支持下,使用内容分析的演绎方法,将障碍和促进因素分为能力、机会和共同生产卫生和保健的动机。结果:参与者对合拍片的理解有限。他们似乎把它看作是在传统护理之上提供给病人的一种特权,很少把它看作是改善医疗保健过程的一种方法。访谈显示,患者的健康素养有限,专业人员向这些患者传达健康信息也很困难。联合生产被认为比传统护理需要更多的资源。对利益相关者角色的不同期望揭示了:专业人员期望老年患者不想共同生产卫生和护理,所有参与者都希望专业人员负责卫生保健服务。家庭成员的立场包括试图平衡他们支持亲属的愿望与理解何时、如何以及与谁共同生产。假定的利益激励利益相关者:认识到合作生产可以激励患者改善自我保健。然而,与会者认识到,各利益攸关方参与卫生和保健决策的动机因时间而异。结论:利益相关者的动机可以促进合作生产。然而,对联合生产的不同理解程度、患者卫生知识有限、患者和专业人员之间权力分享的不安以及资源限制都是需要克服的障碍,以促进联合生产的护理和改善心衰患者的健康状况。进一步的研究需要探索如何与心衰患者共同提供医疗保健服务,以及领导者如何促进它所要求和代表的不可避免的文化变革。
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
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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