Shuji Tsuda, M. Janevic, K. Shikano, T. Matsui, Tsukasa Tsuda
{"title":"Group-based educational intervention for advance care planning in primary care: a quasi-experimental study in Japan","authors":"Shuji Tsuda, M. Janevic, K. Shikano, T. Matsui, Tsukasa Tsuda","doi":"10.22146/APFM.V18I1.54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Older adults who have health conditions with good prognoses typically fall outside the scope of efforts encouraging advance care planning. We developed group and individual versions of an advance care planning program for use in primary care. \nMethods: We conducted a quasi-experimental trial in a rural family clinic in Japan. Medically stable patients aged ≥65 years were invited to watch an educational video on advance care planning, followed by an individual (n=46) or group-based (n=63) discussion. Advance directive completion was tracked over four months. Participants completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires and reported occurrence of family discussions about advance care planning and attitudes toward advance care planning. Group discussions were recorded and thematically analyzed to identify barriers and facilitators to engaging in advance care planning. \nResults: Advance directive completion rates were high for both intervention versions but did not significantly differ between arms (85.7% vs. 80.4%, p=0.45). Only one-fifth of patients in both arms discussed advance care planning with their family after the intervention (20.7% and 21.7%, p=0.89). Patients in the group arm rated their experience slightly higher than those in the individual arm (4.2 and 3.9 out of 5, p=0.023). Qualitative analysis of group discussions revealed that patients were affected by their perceptions of societal norms that prioritize family consensus over patient autonomy; however, these perceptions influenced advance care planning behaviors in inconsistent ways. \nConclusions: Group-based advance care planning intervention among medically stable older patients is as effective as an individually-focused discussion in promoting advance directive completion. Future research is needed on ways to enhance patients’ ability to discuss advance care planning with their family members.","PeriodicalId":39050,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Family Medicine","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/APFM.V18I1.54","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background: Older adults who have health conditions with good prognoses typically fall outside the scope of efforts encouraging advance care planning. We developed group and individual versions of an advance care planning program for use in primary care.
Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental trial in a rural family clinic in Japan. Medically stable patients aged ≥65 years were invited to watch an educational video on advance care planning, followed by an individual (n=46) or group-based (n=63) discussion. Advance directive completion was tracked over four months. Participants completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires and reported occurrence of family discussions about advance care planning and attitudes toward advance care planning. Group discussions were recorded and thematically analyzed to identify barriers and facilitators to engaging in advance care planning.
Results: Advance directive completion rates were high for both intervention versions but did not significantly differ between arms (85.7% vs. 80.4%, p=0.45). Only one-fifth of patients in both arms discussed advance care planning with their family after the intervention (20.7% and 21.7%, p=0.89). Patients in the group arm rated their experience slightly higher than those in the individual arm (4.2 and 3.9 out of 5, p=0.023). Qualitative analysis of group discussions revealed that patients were affected by their perceptions of societal norms that prioritize family consensus over patient autonomy; however, these perceptions influenced advance care planning behaviors in inconsistent ways.
Conclusions: Group-based advance care planning intervention among medically stable older patients is as effective as an individually-focused discussion in promoting advance directive completion. Future research is needed on ways to enhance patients’ ability to discuss advance care planning with their family members.
背景:具有良好预后的健康状况的老年人通常不在鼓励提前护理计划的范围之内。我们开发了小组和个人版本的预先护理计划程序,用于初级保健。方法:在日本农村家庭诊所进行准实验试验。年龄≥65岁的病情稳定的患者被邀请观看关于预先护理计划的教育视频,随后进行个人(n=46)或小组(n=63)讨论。预先指示完成情况跟踪了四个月。参与者完成了基线和随访问卷,并报告了家庭讨论提前护理计划的情况和对提前护理计划的态度。小组讨论记录和专题分析,以确定障碍和促进参与提前护理计划。结果:两种干预版本的预先指示完成率都很高,但两组间无显著差异(85.7% vs. 80.4%, p=0.45)。两组均仅有五分之一的患者在干预后与家人讨论了预先护理计划(20.7%和21.7%,p=0.89)。组组患者对自身体验的评价略高于单独组(5分中的4.2分和3.9分,p=0.023)。小组讨论的定性分析显示,患者受到他们对社会规范的看法的影响,这些规范优先考虑家庭共识而不是患者的自主权;然而,这些观念以不一致的方式影响提前护理计划行为。结论:在医学稳定的老年患者中,以小组为基础的提前护理计划干预与以个人为中心的讨论在促进提前指示完成方面同样有效。未来需要研究如何提高患者与家人讨论预先护理计划的能力。