How Involved Do Patients Want to Be in the Medical Decision-Making at the Initial Urogynecology Clinic Visit?

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
L. Westbay, W. Adams, H. Barnes, M. Gevelinger, Daryl McKee, C. Fitzgerald, M. Acevedo-alvarez, E. Mueller, T. Pham
{"title":"How Involved Do Patients Want to Be in the Medical Decision-Making at the Initial Urogynecology Clinic Visit?","authors":"L. Westbay, W. Adams, H. Barnes, M. Gevelinger, Daryl McKee, C. Fitzgerald, M. Acevedo-alvarez, E. Mueller, T. Pham","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The aim of this study was to compare patients' preferred role in medical decision-making before the initial urogynecology visit to their perceived role after the visit. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled women presenting for their initial urogynecology visit. Before and after the visit, patients completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS), which categorizes the role that patients want to have in medical decision-making: active, collaborative, or passive. Patients also completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, CollaboRATE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, patient satisfaction, and Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults questionnaires. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations were used. Results Women (n = 100) with a mean age of 59.1 years (SD = 15.5) participated in the study. Based on CPS before the visit, 50% of the women preferred active involvement, whereas 45% preferred collaborative and 5% preferred passive involvement. After the visit, these rates change to 40%, 48%, and 11%, respectively. On univariable analysis, women were 1.56 times more likely to report a collaborative or passive CPS response after the visit (P = 0.02). This remained true on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.57; P = 0.04). Patients' CPS responses were not associated with their responses on CollaboRATE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, patient satisfaction, or Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Eighty-eight percent of women reported a fully collaborative visit based on CollaboRATE, and 87% reported being “completely satisfied” with the visit. Conclusions Despite a change in women's reported involvement in decision-making after their first urogynecology visit compared with their preferences before the visit, most women perceived collaboration during their visit and were completely satisfied.","PeriodicalId":48831,"journal":{"name":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","volume":"28 1","pages":"153 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001157","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare patients' preferred role in medical decision-making before the initial urogynecology visit to their perceived role after the visit. Methods This prospective cohort study enrolled women presenting for their initial urogynecology visit. Before and after the visit, patients completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS), which categorizes the role that patients want to have in medical decision-making: active, collaborative, or passive. Patients also completed the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, CollaboRATE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, patient satisfaction, and Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults questionnaires. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equations were used. Results Women (n = 100) with a mean age of 59.1 years (SD = 15.5) participated in the study. Based on CPS before the visit, 50% of the women preferred active involvement, whereas 45% preferred collaborative and 5% preferred passive involvement. After the visit, these rates change to 40%, 48%, and 11%, respectively. On univariable analysis, women were 1.56 times more likely to report a collaborative or passive CPS response after the visit (P = 0.02). This remained true on multivariable analysis (odds ratio, 1.57; P = 0.04). Patients' CPS responses were not associated with their responses on CollaboRATE, Patient Global Impression of Improvement, patient satisfaction, or Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. Eighty-eight percent of women reported a fully collaborative visit based on CollaboRATE, and 87% reported being “completely satisfied” with the visit. Conclusions Despite a change in women's reported involvement in decision-making after their first urogynecology visit compared with their preferences before the visit, most women perceived collaboration during their visit and were completely satisfied.
在第一次泌尿妇科门诊就诊时,患者希望如何参与医疗决策?
目的本研究的目的是比较患者在初次泌尿生殖道就诊前在医疗决策中的首选角色和就诊后的感知角色。方法这项前瞻性队列研究招募了首次就诊的女性。在就诊前后,患者完成了控制偏好量表(CPS),该量表对患者希望在医疗决策中发挥的作用进行了分类:主动、协作或被动。患者还完成了盆底疼痛量表、CollaboRATE、患者整体改善印象、患者满意度和成人功能健康素养短期测试问卷。使用了单变量和多变量广义估计方程。结果女性(n=100),平均年龄59.1岁(SD=15.5)。根据访视前的CPS,50%的女性更喜欢主动参与,45%的女性喜欢合作,5%的女性喜欢被动参与。访问后,这些比率分别变为40%、48%和11%。在单变量分析中,女性在就诊后报告协作或被动CPS反应的可能性高出1.56倍(P=0.02)。在多变量分析中也是如此(比值比,1.57;P=0.04)。患者的CPS反应与她们对CollaboRATE、患者整体改善印象、患者满意度、,或成人功能性健康素养短期测试。88%的女性报告称,她们在CollaboRATE的基础上进行了全面的合作访问,87%的女性报告对访问“完全满意”。结论尽管与就诊前的偏好相比,女性在第一次泌尿生殖科就诊后参与决策的情况发生了变化,但大多数女性在就诊期间感觉到了合作,并感到完全满意。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
228
期刊介绍: Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, official journal of the American Urogynecologic Society, is a peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal dedicated to specialists, physicians and allied health professionals concerned with prevention, diagnosis and treatment of female pelvic floor disorders. The journal publishes original clinical research, basic science research, education, scientific advances, case reports, scientific reviews, editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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