Journal of Participatory Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Correction: Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.","authors":"Timothy Coetzee,&nbsp;Mad Price Ball,&nbsp;Marc Boutin,&nbsp;Abby Bronson,&nbsp;David T Dexter,&nbsp;Rebecca A English,&nbsp;Patricia Furlong,&nbsp;Andrew D Goodman,&nbsp;Cynthia Grossman,&nbsp;Adrian F Hernandez,&nbsp;Jennifer E Hinners,&nbsp;Lynn Hudson,&nbsp;Annie Kennedy,&nbsp;Mary Jane Marchisotto,&nbsp;Lynn Matrisian,&nbsp;Elizabeth Myers,&nbsp;W Benjamin Nowell,&nbsp;Brian A Nosek,&nbsp;Todd Sherer,&nbsp;Carolyn Shore,&nbsp;Ida Sim,&nbsp;Luba Smolensky,&nbsp;Christopher Williams,&nbsp;Julie Wood,&nbsp;Sharon F Terry","doi":"10.2196/31371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/31371","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/23011.].</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"e31371"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280826/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39179472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Identification and Reporting of Patient and Public Partner Authorship on Knowledge Syntheses: Rapid Review.","authors":"Ursula Ellis, Vanessa Kitchin, Mathew Vis-Dunbar","doi":"10.2196/27141","DOIUrl":"10.2196/27141","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is an area of growing interest. Several studies have examined the use and impact of PPI in knowledge syntheses (systematic, scoping, and related reviews); however, few studies have focused specifically on the patient or public coauthorship of such reviews.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study seeks to identify published systematic and scoping reviews coauthored by patient or public partners and examine the characteristics of these coauthored reviews, such as which journals publish them, geographic location of research teams, and terms used to describe patient or public partner authors in affiliations, abstracts, or article text.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched CAB Direct, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), and PsycInfo from 2011 to May 2019, with a supplementary search of several PPI-focused databases. We refined the Ovid MEDLINE search by examining frequently used words and phrases in relevant search results and searched Ovid MEDLINE using the modified search strategy in June 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 13,998 results and found 37 studies that met our inclusion criteria. In line with other PPI research, we found that a wide range of terms were used for patient and public authors in author affiliations. In some cases, partners were easy to identify with titles such as patient, caregiver or consumer representative, patient partner, expert by experience, citizen researcher, or public contributor. In 11% (n=4) of studies, they were identified as members of a panel or advisory council. In 27% (n=10) of articles, it was either impossible or difficult to tell whether an author was a partner solely from the affiliation, and confirmation was found elsewhere in the article. We also investigated where in the reviews the partner coauthors' roles were described, and when possible, what their specific roles were. Often, there was little or no information about which review tasks the partner coauthors contributed to. Furthermore, only 14% (5/37) of reviews mentioned patient or public involvement as authors in the abstract; involvement was often only indicated in the author affiliation field or in the review text (most often in the methods or contributions section).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings add to the evidence that searching for coproduced research is difficult because of the diversity of terms used to describe patient and public partners, and the lack of consistent, detailed reporting about PPI. For better discoverability, we recommend ensuring that patient and public authorships are indicated in commonly searched database fields. When patient and public-authored research is easier to find, its impact will be easier to measure.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"e27141"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235296/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39000382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"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":"https://doi.org/10.2196/27125","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 p","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"e27125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8150411/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38970004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Co-Immune: a case study on open innovation for vaccination hesitancy and access","authors":"Camille Masselot, B. G. Tzovaras, C. Graham, Gary Finnegan, R. Jeyaram, I. Vitali, Thomas E. Landrain, Marc Santolini","doi":"10.1101/2021.03.29.20248781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.29.20248781","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The rise of major complex public health problems, such as vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination, requires innovative, open and transdisciplinary approaches. In spite of this, institutional silos, paywalls and lack of participation of non-academic citizens in the design of solutions hamper efforts to meet these challenges. Against this background, new solutions have been explored, with participatory research, citizen science, hackathon and challenge-based approaches being applied in the context of public health. Objectives: Our ambition was to develop a framework for creating citizen science and open innovation projects that address the contemporary challenges of vaccination in France and around the globe. Methods: We designed and implemented Co-Immune, a programme created to tackle the question of vaccination hesitancy and access to vaccination through an online and offline challenge-based open innovation approach. The programme was run on the open science platform Just One Giant Lab. Results: Over a 6-month period, the Co-Immune programme gathered 234 participants of diverse backgrounds and 13 partners from the public and private sectors and organized 8 events to facilitate the creation of 20 new projects as well as the continuation of 2 existing projects to address the issues of vaccination hesitancy and access, ranging from app development and data mining to analysis and game design. In an open framework, the projects made their data, code, and solutions publicly available. Conclusion: Co-Immune highlights how open innovation approaches and online platforms can help to gather and coordinate non-institutional communities in a rapid, distributed and global way towards solving public health issues. Through the ideas of hackathons and other contest approaches, such initiatives can lead to the production and transfer of knowledge, creating novel solutions in the public health sector. The example of Co-Immune contributes to paving the way for organisations and individuals to collaboratively tackle future global challenges.","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46668076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.","authors":"Timothy Coetzee, Mad Price Ball, Marc Boutin, Abby Bronson, David T Dexter, Rebecca A English, Patricia Furlong, Andrew D Goodman, Cynthia Grossman, Adrian F Hernandez, Jennifer E Hinners, Lynn Hudson, Annie Kennedy, Mary Jane Marchisotto, Elizabeth Myers, W Benjamin Nowell, Brian A Nosek, Todd Sherer, Carolyn Shore, Ida Sim, Luba Smolensky, Christopher Williams, Julie Wood, Sharon F Terry, Lynn Matrisian","doi":"10.2196/23011","DOIUrl":"10.2196/23011","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants' networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e23011"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088851/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25527086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Best Practices for Virtual Engagement of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Teams During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study.","authors":"Erin K Thayer,&nbsp;Molly Pam,&nbsp;Morhaf Al Achkar,&nbsp;Laura Mentch,&nbsp;Georgia Brown,&nbsp;Traci M Kazmerski,&nbsp;Emily Godfrey","doi":"10.2196/24966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/24966","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) engages patients as partners in research and focuses on questions and outcomes that are important to patients. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced PCOR teams to engage through web-based platforms rather than in person. Similarly, virtual engagement is the only safe alternative for members of the cystic fibrosis (CF) community, who spend their lives following strict infection control guidelines and are already restricted from in-person interactions. In the absence of universal best practices, the CF community has developed its own guidelines to help PCOR teams engage through web-based platforms.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to identify the important attributes, facilitators, and barriers to teams when selecting web-based platforms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured interviews with CF community members, nonprofit stakeholders, and researchers to obtain information regarding their experience with using web-based platforms, including the effectiveness and efficiency of these platforms and their satisfaction with and confidence while using each platform. Interviews conducted via Zoom were audio recorded and transcribed. We identified key themes through content analysis with an iterative, inductive, and deductive coding process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 15 participants reported using web-based platforms for meetings, project management, document sharing, scheduling, and communication. When selecting web-based platforms, participants valued their accessibility, ease of use, and integration with other platforms. Participants speculated that successful web-based collaboration involved platforms that emulate in-person interactions, recognized the digital literacy levels of the team members, intentionally aligned platforms with collaboration goals, and achieved team member buy-in to adopt new platforms.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Successful web-based engagement in PCOR requires the use of multiple platforms in order to fully meet the asynchronous or synchronous goals of the project. This study identified the key attributes for the successful practice of PCOR on web-based platforms and the common challenges and solutions associated with their use. Our findings provide the best practices for selecting platforms and the lessons learned through web-based PCOR collaborations.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e24966"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7954110/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25418133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Feasibility and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Peer-Developed and Virtually Delivered Community Mental Health Training Program (Emotional CPR): Pre-Post Study.","authors":"Amanda L Myers,&nbsp;Caroline Collins-Pisano,&nbsp;Joelle C Ferron,&nbsp;Karen L Fortuna","doi":"10.2196/25867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/25867","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global mental health crisis, highlighting the need for a focus on community-wide mental health. Emotional CPR (eCPR) is a program and practice developed by persons with a lived experience of recovery from trauma or mental health challenges to train community members from diverse backgrounds to support others through mental health crises. eCPR trainers have found that eCPR may promote feelings of belonging by increasing supportive behaviors toward individuals with mental health problems. Thus, clinical outcomes related to positive and negative affect would improve along with feelings of loneliness.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of eCPR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a pre-post design with 151 individuals, including peer support specialists, service users, clinicians, family members, and nonprofit leaders, who participated in virtual eCPR trainings between April 20, 2020, and July 31, 2020. Instruments were administered before and after training and included the Herth Hope Scale; Empowerment Scale; Flourishing Scale (perceived capacity to support individuals); Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; Active-Empathic Listening Scale (supportive behaviors toward individuals with mental health challenges); Social Connectedness Scale (feelings of belonging and connection with others); Positive and Negative Affect Schedule; and University of California, Los Angeles 3-item Loneliness Scale (symptoms and emotions). The eCPR fidelity scale was used to determine the feasibility of delivering eCPR with fidelity. We conducted 2-tailed paired t tests to examine posttraining improvements related to each scale. Additionally, data were stratified to identify pre-post differences by role.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings indicate that it is feasible for people with a lived experience of a mental health condition to develop a program and train people to deliver eCPR with fidelity. Statistically significant pre-post changes were found related to one's ability to identify emotions, support others in distress, communicate nonverbally, share emotions, and take care of oneself, as well as to one's feelings of social connectedness, self-perceived flourishing, and positive affect (P≤.05). Findings indicated promising evidence of pre-post improvements (not statistically significant) related to loneliness, empowerment, active-empathetic listening, mindfulness awareness, and hope. Nonprofit leaders and workers demonstrated the greatest improvements related to loneliness, social connectedness, empathic listening, and flourishing. Peer support specialists demonstrated the greatest improvements related to positive affect, and clinicians demonstrated the greatest improvements related to mindfulness awareness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Promising evidence indicates that eCPR, a peer-developed and peer-delivered program, ","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e25867"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7974761/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25437234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Diabetes Prevention in Adolescents: Co-design Study Using Human-Centered Design Methodologies.","authors":"Julie M Pike, Courtney M Moore, Lisa G Yazel, Dustin O Lynch, Kathryn M Haberlin-Pittz, Sarah E Wiehe, Tamara S Hannon","doi":"10.2196/18245","DOIUrl":"10.2196/18245","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rise in pediatric obesity and its accompanying condition, type 2 diabetes (T2D), is a serious public health concern. T2D in adolescents is associated with poor health outcomes and decreased life expectancy. Effective diabetes prevention strategies for high-risk adolescents and their families are urgently needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to co-design a diabetes prevention program for adolescents by using human-centered design methodologies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We partnered with at-risk adolescents, parents, and professionals with expertise in diabetes prevention or those working with adolescents to conduct a series of human-centered design research sessions to co-design a diabetes prevention intervention for youth and their families. In order to do so, we needed to (1) better understand environmental factors that inhibit/promote recommended lifestyle changes to decrease T2D risk, (2) elucidate desired program characteristics, and (3) explore improved activation in diabetes prevention programs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Financial resources, limited access to healthy foods, safe places for physical activity, and competing priorities pose barriers to adopting lifestyle changes. Adolescents and their parents desire interactive, hands-on learning experiences that incorporate a sense of fun, play, and community in diabetes prevention programs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this study highlight important insights of 3 specific stakeholder groups regarding diabetes prevention and lifestyle changes. The findings of this study demonstrate that, with appropriate methods and facilitation, adolescents, parents, and professionals can be empowered to co-design diabetes prevention programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e18245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7946580/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25399811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Patient Experience and Predictors of Improvement in a Group Behavioral and Educational Intervention for Individuals With Diabetes and Serious Mental Illness: Mixed Methods Case Study.","authors":"Kristina Schnitzer,&nbsp;Corrine Cather,&nbsp;Vanya Zvonar,&nbsp;Alyson Dechert,&nbsp;Rachel Plummer,&nbsp;Kelsey Lowman,&nbsp;Gladys Pachas,&nbsp;Kevin Potter,&nbsp;Anne Eden Evins","doi":"10.2196/21934","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/21934","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In a previous study, participation in a 16-week reverse integrated care and group behavioral and educational intervention for individuals with diabetes and serious mental illness was associated with improved glycemic control (hemoglobin A_1c) and BMI. To inform future implementation efforts, more information about the effective components of the intervention is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this study is to identify the aspects of the intervention participants reported to be helpful and to evaluate the predictors of outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study involved qualitative evaluation and post hoc quantitative analysis of a previous intervention. Qualitative data were collected using semistructured interviews with 69% (24/35) of the individuals who attended 1 or more group sessions and 35% (9/26) of the individuals who consented but attended no sessions. Quantitative mixed effects modeling was performed to test whether improved diabetes knowledge, diet, and exercise or higher group attendance predicted improved hemoglobin A_1c and BMI. These interview and modeling outcomes were combined using a mixed methods case study framework and integrated thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In qualitative interviews, participants identified the application of health-related knowledge gained to real-world situations, accountability for goals, positive reinforcement and group support, and increased confidence in prioritizing health goals as factors contributing to the success of the behavioral intervention. Improved knowledge of diabetes was associated with reduced BMI (β=-1.27, SD 0.40; P=.003). No quantitative variables examined were significantly associated with improved hemoglobin A_1c levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this mixed methods analysis of predictors of success in a behavioral diabetes management program, group participants highlighted the value of positive reinforcement and group support, accountability for goals set, and real-world application of health-related knowledge gained. Improved diabetes knowledge was associated with weight loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"e21934"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7910121/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25365180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does a Pandemic Preempt Participatory Medicine?","authors":"Michael Louis Millenson","doi":"10.2196/23860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2196/23860","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For those of us who believe deeply in a collaborative relationship between patients and doctors, the chaos created by the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an uncomfortable question to the fore: Is participatory medicine still relevant during a pandemic? Drawing liberally upon the Jewish tradition of Talmudic reasoning, I would like to offer 3 considered replies: \"Yes,\" \"no,\" and \"it depends.\" Sometimes, patients may have no choice but to cede control to medical professionals, even though patients are still the experts on their own lives. Other times, the shared control of participatory medicine is both an ethical and clinical imperative. However, as the worldwide toll exacted by COVID-19 has made us grimly aware, no one is really in control. That is why, in these uncertain times, the path forward requires maintaining mutual trust between health care providers and patients, whatever the circumstances. After all, it is our bodies and our selves at stake.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"12 4","pages":"e23860"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7744137/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38669832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}