阿尔伯塔省卡尔加里市家庭医学住院医师培训项目中实习医生对睡眠障碍的管理:一项混合方法研究。

CMAJ open Pub Date : 2023-07-25 Print Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20220080
Sarah Cheung, Maeve O'Beirne, Todd Hill, Trudy Huyghebaert, Shelly Keller, Martina Kelly
{"title":"阿尔伯塔省卡尔加里市家庭医学住院医师培训项目中实习医生对睡眠障碍的管理:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Sarah Cheung, Maeve O'Beirne, Todd Hill, Trudy Huyghebaert, Shelly Keller, Martina Kelly","doi":"10.9778/cmajo.20220080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most prescriptions for sedative-hypnotics are written by family physicians. Given the influence of preceptors on residents' prescribing, this study explored how family physician preceptors manage sleeping problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Family physician preceptors affiliated with a postgraduate training program in Alberta were invited to participate in this mixed-methods study, conducted from January to October 2021. It included a quantitative survey of preceptors' attitudes to treatment options for sleep disorder, perceptions of patient expectations and self-efficacy beliefs. Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from \"strongly disagree\" to \"strongly agree.\" Respondents were then asked whether they were interested in participating in a semistructured qualitative interview that elicited preceptors' management of sleep disorder in response to a series of vignettes. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and the qualitative interviews using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 76 preceptors invited to participate, 47 (62%) completed the survey, and 10 were interviewed. Thirty-two survey respondents (68%) were in academic teaching clinics, and 15 (32%) were from community clinics. The majority of participants (34 [72%]) agreed they had sufficient expertise to use nondrug treatment. Most (43 [91%]) had made efforts to reduce prescribing, and 45 (96%) felt able to support patients empathically when not using sleeping medication. The qualitative data showed that management of sleeping disorder was emotionally challenging. Participants hesitated to prescribe sedatives and reported \"exceptions\" to prescribing, many of which included indications within guideline recommendations. Participants were reluctant to change a colleague's management.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Preceptors were confident using nonpharmacologic management to treat sleep disorder and hesitant to use sedative-hypnotics, presenting legitimate use of sedatives as exceptional behaviour. Acknowledging social norms and affective aspects involved in prescribing may support balanced prescribing of sedative-hypnotics for sleep disorder and reduce physician anxiety.</p>","PeriodicalId":10432,"journal":{"name":"CMAJ open","volume":"11 4","pages":"E637-E644"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/63/cmajo.20220080.PMC10374247.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of sleep disorder by preceptors in a family medicine residency program in Calgary, Alberta: a mixed-methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Cheung, Maeve O'Beirne, Todd Hill, Trudy Huyghebaert, Shelly Keller, Martina Kelly\",\"doi\":\"10.9778/cmajo.20220080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Most prescriptions for sedative-hypnotics are written by family physicians. Given the influence of preceptors on residents' prescribing, this study explored how family physician preceptors manage sleeping problems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Family physician preceptors affiliated with a postgraduate training program in Alberta were invited to participate in this mixed-methods study, conducted from January to October 2021. It included a quantitative survey of preceptors' attitudes to treatment options for sleep disorder, perceptions of patient expectations and self-efficacy beliefs. Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from \\\"strongly disagree\\\" to \\\"strongly agree.\\\" Respondents were then asked whether they were interested in participating in a semistructured qualitative interview that elicited preceptors' management of sleep disorder in response to a series of vignettes. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and the qualitative interviews using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 76 preceptors invited to participate, 47 (62%) completed the survey, and 10 were interviewed. Thirty-two survey respondents (68%) were in academic teaching clinics, and 15 (32%) were from community clinics. The majority of participants (34 [72%]) agreed they had sufficient expertise to use nondrug treatment. Most (43 [91%]) had made efforts to reduce prescribing, and 45 (96%) felt able to support patients empathically when not using sleeping medication. The qualitative data showed that management of sleeping disorder was emotionally challenging. Participants hesitated to prescribe sedatives and reported \\\"exceptions\\\" to prescribing, many of which included indications within guideline recommendations. Participants were reluctant to change a colleague's management.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Preceptors were confident using nonpharmacologic management to treat sleep disorder and hesitant to use sedative-hypnotics, presenting legitimate use of sedatives as exceptional behaviour. Acknowledging social norms and affective aspects involved in prescribing may support balanced prescribing of sedative-hypnotics for sleep disorder and reduce physician anxiety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CMAJ open\",\"volume\":\"11 4\",\"pages\":\"E637-E644\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/89/63/cmajo.20220080.PMC10374247.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CMAJ open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20220080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CMAJ open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20220080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大多数镇静催眠药处方都是由家庭医生开具的。鉴于戒律指导者对住院医生处方的影响,本研究探讨了家庭医生戒律指导者如何处理睡眠问题:方法:本研究邀请阿尔伯塔省研究生培训项目的全科医师实习医生参与这项混合方法研究,研究时间为 2021 年 1 月至 10 月。研究包括一项定量调查,内容涉及戒律者对睡眠障碍治疗方案的态度、对患者期望的看法以及自我效能信念。参与者以 "非常不同意 "到 "非常同意 "的 5 点李克特量表来回答。然后,我们询问受访者是否有兴趣参加半结构式定性访谈,通过一系列小故事了解戒酒师对睡眠障碍的管理情况。我们使用描述性统计对定量数据进行了分析,并使用主题分析对定性访谈进行了分析:在应邀参加调查的 76 名戒酒师中,47 人(62%)完成了调查,10 人接受了访谈。32名调查对象(68%)来自学术教学诊所,15名(32%)来自社区诊所。大多数参与者(34 [72%])同意他们有足够的专业知识来使用非药物治疗。大多数参与者(43 人 [91%])已努力减少处方,45 人(96%)认为在不使用安眠药时能够以移情的方式为患者提供支持。定性数据显示,对睡眠障碍的管理在情感上具有挑战性。参与者在开具镇静剂处方时犹豫不决,并报告了开具处方的 "例外情况",其中许多包括指南建议范围内的适应症。参与者不愿改变同事的管理方法:戒酒者有信心使用非药物疗法治疗睡眠障碍,但对使用镇静催眠药犹豫不决,认为合法使用镇静药是例外行为。承认处方中涉及的社会规范和情感因素可能有助于平衡使用镇静催眠药治疗睡眠障碍,并减少医生的焦虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management of sleep disorder by preceptors in a family medicine residency program in Calgary, Alberta: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Most prescriptions for sedative-hypnotics are written by family physicians. Given the influence of preceptors on residents' prescribing, this study explored how family physician preceptors manage sleeping problems.

Methods: Family physician preceptors affiliated with a postgraduate training program in Alberta were invited to participate in this mixed-methods study, conducted from January to October 2021. It included a quantitative survey of preceptors' attitudes to treatment options for sleep disorder, perceptions of patient expectations and self-efficacy beliefs. Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Respondents were then asked whether they were interested in participating in a semistructured qualitative interview that elicited preceptors' management of sleep disorder in response to a series of vignettes. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and the qualitative interviews using thematic analysis.

Results: Of the 76 preceptors invited to participate, 47 (62%) completed the survey, and 10 were interviewed. Thirty-two survey respondents (68%) were in academic teaching clinics, and 15 (32%) were from community clinics. The majority of participants (34 [72%]) agreed they had sufficient expertise to use nondrug treatment. Most (43 [91%]) had made efforts to reduce prescribing, and 45 (96%) felt able to support patients empathically when not using sleeping medication. The qualitative data showed that management of sleeping disorder was emotionally challenging. Participants hesitated to prescribe sedatives and reported "exceptions" to prescribing, many of which included indications within guideline recommendations. Participants were reluctant to change a colleague's management.

Interpretation: Preceptors were confident using nonpharmacologic management to treat sleep disorder and hesitant to use sedative-hypnotics, presenting legitimate use of sedatives as exceptional behaviour. Acknowledging social norms and affective aspects involved in prescribing may support balanced prescribing of sedative-hypnotics for sleep disorder and reduce physician anxiety.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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