Developing Brief Opportunistic Interactions: practitioners facilitate patients to identify and change health risk behaviours at an early preventive stage

B. Docherty, N. Sheridan, T. Kenealy
{"title":"Developing Brief Opportunistic Interactions: practitioners facilitate patients to identify and change health risk behaviours at an early preventive stage","authors":"B. Docherty, N. Sheridan, T. Kenealy","doi":"10.1017/S1463423615000511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To identify shortcomings in existing models of patient behaviour change, and present the development and testing of a novel approach using practitioner facilitation and person-focussed conversations that identifies and addresses behaviours at an earlier stage than current models. Background Systematic strategies used by health professionals to change patient behaviours began with motivational interviewing and brief intervention approaches for serious addictive behaviours. Practitioners typically presume they should drive the process of patient behaviour change. Attempts to transfer these approaches to primary care, and a broader range of health risk behaviours, have been less successful. The TADS programme (Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs, later Training and Development Services) began teaching motivational interviewing and brief interventions to practitioners in New Zealand in 1996. Formal and informal evaluations showed that practitioners used screening tools that patients rejected and that led to incomplete disclosure, used language that did not engage patients, failed to identify the behaviours patients wished to address and therefore misdirected interventions. Methods Iterative development of new tools with input from patients and primary care clinicians. Findings The TADS programme developed a questionnaire whose results remained private to the patient, which enabled the patient to identify personal behaviours that they might choose to change (the TADS Personal Assessment Choice Tool). This was assisted by a brief conversation that facilitated and supported any change prioritised by the patient (the TADS Brief Opportunistic Interaction). The need for this approach, and its effectiveness, appeared to be similar across adults, youth, different ethnic groups and people in different socio-economic circumstances. Behaviours patients identified were often linked to other health risk behaviours or early-stage mental health disorders that were not easily detected by practitioner-driven screening or inquiry. The long-term effectiveness of this approach in different populations in primary health care settings requires further evaluation.","PeriodicalId":20471,"journal":{"name":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Health Care Research & Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423615000511","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aim To identify shortcomings in existing models of patient behaviour change, and present the development and testing of a novel approach using practitioner facilitation and person-focussed conversations that identifies and addresses behaviours at an earlier stage than current models. Background Systematic strategies used by health professionals to change patient behaviours began with motivational interviewing and brief intervention approaches for serious addictive behaviours. Practitioners typically presume they should drive the process of patient behaviour change. Attempts to transfer these approaches to primary care, and a broader range of health risk behaviours, have been less successful. The TADS programme (Tobacco, Alcohol and Other Drugs, later Training and Development Services) began teaching motivational interviewing and brief interventions to practitioners in New Zealand in 1996. Formal and informal evaluations showed that practitioners used screening tools that patients rejected and that led to incomplete disclosure, used language that did not engage patients, failed to identify the behaviours patients wished to address and therefore misdirected interventions. Methods Iterative development of new tools with input from patients and primary care clinicians. Findings The TADS programme developed a questionnaire whose results remained private to the patient, which enabled the patient to identify personal behaviours that they might choose to change (the TADS Personal Assessment Choice Tool). This was assisted by a brief conversation that facilitated and supported any change prioritised by the patient (the TADS Brief Opportunistic Interaction). The need for this approach, and its effectiveness, appeared to be similar across adults, youth, different ethnic groups and people in different socio-economic circumstances. Behaviours patients identified were often linked to other health risk behaviours or early-stage mental health disorders that were not easily detected by practitioner-driven screening or inquiry. The long-term effectiveness of this approach in different populations in primary health care settings requires further evaluation.
发展简短的机会性互动:从业者在早期预防阶段帮助患者识别和改变健康风险行为
目的:识别现有患者行为改变模型的缺陷,并提出一种新方法的开发和测试,该方法使用医生促进和以人为本的对话,在比当前模型更早的阶段识别和解决行为。卫生专业人员用于改变患者行为的系统策略始于动机性访谈和对严重成瘾行为的简短干预方法。从业人员通常认为他们应该推动患者行为改变的过程。试图将这些方法转移到初级保健和更广泛的健康风险行为方面,却不太成功。TADS方案(烟草、酒精和其他毒品、后来的培训和发展服务)于1996年开始在新西兰向从业人员教授动机性访谈和简短干预。正式和非正式的评估表明,从业人员使用的筛选工具,患者拒绝,导致不完整的披露,使用的语言没有吸引患者,未能确定患者希望解决的行为,因此误导干预。方法根据患者和初级保健临床医生的意见,反复开发新工具。TADS计划开发了一份问卷,其结果对患者保密,使患者能够确定他们可能选择改变的个人行为(TADS个人评估选择工具)。这是通过一个简短的对话来辅助的,这个对话促进和支持了病人优先考虑的任何改变(TADS简短的机会性互动)。这种方法的必要性及其有效性似乎在成年人、青年、不同种族群体和不同社会经济环境下的人群中都是相似的。患者确定的行为往往与其他健康风险行为或早期精神健康障碍有关,而这些行为不容易通过医生驱动的筛查或询问发现。这一方法在初级卫生保健机构不同人群中的长期有效性需要进一步评估。
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