定量和定性评估妇女的经验,一站式月经诊所与传统妇科诊所的比较

Jafaru I Abu , Marwan A Habiba , Richard Baker , Aidan W.F Halligan , Nicholas J Naftalin , Ronald Hsu , Nicholas Taub
{"title":"定量和定性评估妇女的经验,一站式月经诊所与传统妇科诊所的比较","authors":"Jafaru I Abu ,&nbsp;Marwan A Habiba ,&nbsp;Richard Baker ,&nbsp;Aidan W.F Halligan ,&nbsp;Nicholas J Naftalin ,&nbsp;Ronald Hsu ,&nbsp;Nicholas Taub","doi":"10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00217-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>Objective</strong> A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the views of patients attending two types of clinics for menstrual disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong> Semi-structured qualitative interview and quantitative questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Setting</strong> Five traditional general gynaecology clinics and a one-stop menstrual clinic, where investigations are performed and results given to patients on the same day.</p><p><strong>Participants</strong> Two hundred and thirty-nine women (126 from the gynaecology clinic and 113 from the menstrual clinic) were recruited into the quantitative study; 18 and 26 patients from the gynaecology and the menstrual clinic, respectively, were interviewed for the qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Main</strong> <strong>outcome measures</strong> Women's views about their care and progress towards resolution of their problem.</p><p><strong>Results</strong> Following the initial consultation, 106 (84%) of the gynaecology clinic, and 98 (87%) of the menstrual clinic patients completed the first part of the questionnaire. Of those, 75 (71%) and 79 (81%) patients from the two types of clinic, respectively, completed a follow up questionnaire one year later. There were statistically significant differences in all the components of the first part of the questionnaire (information, continuity, waiting, organisation, and limbo) in favour of the one-stop menstrual clinic. After one year, there was a statistically significant difference in one of the components, <em>patient centeredness</em>, but not in <em>overall process co-ordination</em>. The interviews showed that patients attending the menstrual clinic appreciated getting the results of their investigations on the same day. They also found the organisation of the one-stop menstrual clinic more closely suited to their needs and as a result were more likely to feel they were making progress.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong> Women were consistently more positive about their experience in the one-stop clinic. One-stop clinics organised to meet the needs of patients might be appropriate for other clinical conditions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is an effective method of assessing patients’ views of health services.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":75620,"journal":{"name":"British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology","volume":"108 9","pages":"Pages 993-999"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00217-0","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative and qualitative assessment of women's experience of a one-stop menstrual clinic in comparison with traditional gynaecology clinics\",\"authors\":\"Jafaru I Abu ,&nbsp;Marwan A Habiba ,&nbsp;Richard Baker ,&nbsp;Aidan W.F Halligan ,&nbsp;Nicholas J Naftalin ,&nbsp;Ronald Hsu ,&nbsp;Nicholas Taub\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00217-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><strong>Objective</strong> A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the views of patients attending two types of clinics for menstrual disorders.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong> Semi-structured qualitative interview and quantitative questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Setting</strong> Five traditional general gynaecology clinics and a one-stop menstrual clinic, where investigations are performed and results given to patients on the same day.</p><p><strong>Participants</strong> Two hundred and thirty-nine women (126 from the gynaecology clinic and 113 from the menstrual clinic) were recruited into the quantitative study; 18 and 26 patients from the gynaecology and the menstrual clinic, respectively, were interviewed for the qualitative study.</p><p><strong>Main</strong> <strong>outcome measures</strong> Women's views about their care and progress towards resolution of their problem.</p><p><strong>Results</strong> Following the initial consultation, 106 (84%) of the gynaecology clinic, and 98 (87%) of the menstrual clinic patients completed the first part of the questionnaire. Of those, 75 (71%) and 79 (81%) patients from the two types of clinic, respectively, completed a follow up questionnaire one year later. There were statistically significant differences in all the components of the first part of the questionnaire (information, continuity, waiting, organisation, and limbo) in favour of the one-stop menstrual clinic. After one year, there was a statistically significant difference in one of the components, <em>patient centeredness</em>, but not in <em>overall process co-ordination</em>. The interviews showed that patients attending the menstrual clinic appreciated getting the results of their investigations on the same day. They also found the organisation of the one-stop menstrual clinic more closely suited to their needs and as a result were more likely to feel they were making progress.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong> Women were consistently more positive about their experience in the one-stop clinic. One-stop clinics organised to meet the needs of patients might be appropriate for other clinical conditions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is an effective method of assessing patients’ views of health services.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology\",\"volume\":\"108 9\",\"pages\":\"Pages 993-999\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0306-5456(01)00217-0\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306545601002170\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306545601002170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的定量和定性评价两类门诊患者对月经紊乱的看法。方法半结构化定性访谈和定量问卷调查。设置五家传统妇科诊所和一家一站式月经诊所,在那里进行检查并在同一天向患者提供结果。239名妇女(126名来自妇科诊所,113名来自月经诊所)被招募到定量研究中;分别对18名妇科和26名月经门诊患者进行了定性研究。主要成果衡量妇女对其护理和在解决其问题方面取得进展的看法。结果初诊后,106家妇科诊所(84%)和98家月经诊所(87%)的患者完成了问卷的第一部分。其中75例(71%)和79例(81%)患者在一年后分别完成了随访问卷。调查问卷第一部分的所有组成部分(信息、连续性、等待、组织和悬而未决)都有统计学上的显著差异,有利于一站式月经诊所。一年后,在其中一个组成部分,以病人为中心,有统计学意义上的显著差异,但在整体过程协调方面没有显著差异。访谈显示,来月经门诊就诊的患者对当天得到调查结果表示感谢。她们还发现,一站式经期诊所的组织更符合她们的需求,因此她们更有可能感到自己正在取得进步。结论女性对她们在一站式诊所的体验始终较为积极。为满足病人需要而设立的一站式诊所可能也适用于其他临床情况。定量和定性相结合的方法是评估患者对卫生服务的看法的有效方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative and qualitative assessment of women's experience of a one-stop menstrual clinic in comparison with traditional gynaecology clinics

Objective A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the views of patients attending two types of clinics for menstrual disorders.

Methods Semi-structured qualitative interview and quantitative questionnaire.

Setting Five traditional general gynaecology clinics and a one-stop menstrual clinic, where investigations are performed and results given to patients on the same day.

Participants Two hundred and thirty-nine women (126 from the gynaecology clinic and 113 from the menstrual clinic) were recruited into the quantitative study; 18 and 26 patients from the gynaecology and the menstrual clinic, respectively, were interviewed for the qualitative study.

Main outcome measures Women's views about their care and progress towards resolution of their problem.

Results Following the initial consultation, 106 (84%) of the gynaecology clinic, and 98 (87%) of the menstrual clinic patients completed the first part of the questionnaire. Of those, 75 (71%) and 79 (81%) patients from the two types of clinic, respectively, completed a follow up questionnaire one year later. There were statistically significant differences in all the components of the first part of the questionnaire (information, continuity, waiting, organisation, and limbo) in favour of the one-stop menstrual clinic. After one year, there was a statistically significant difference in one of the components, patient centeredness, but not in overall process co-ordination. The interviews showed that patients attending the menstrual clinic appreciated getting the results of their investigations on the same day. They also found the organisation of the one-stop menstrual clinic more closely suited to their needs and as a result were more likely to feel they were making progress.

Conclusion Women were consistently more positive about their experience in the one-stop clinic. One-stop clinics organised to meet the needs of patients might be appropriate for other clinical conditions. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods is an effective method of assessing patients’ views of health services.

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