医疗保健专业人员对在初级保健中实施共同决策的看法:来自虚拟实践社区的定性研究

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alezandra Torres-Castaño, L. Perestelo-Pérez, D. Koatz, Vanesa Ramos-García, A. González-González, A. Toledo-Chávarri, C. Bermejo-Caja, Himar González-Pacheco, Analia Abt-Sack, V. Pacheco-Huergo, C. Orrego
{"title":"医疗保健专业人员对在初级保健中实施共同决策的看法:来自虚拟实践社区的定性研究","authors":"Alezandra Torres-Castaño, L. Perestelo-Pérez, D. Koatz, Vanesa Ramos-García, A. González-González, A. Toledo-Chávarri, C. Bermejo-Caja, Himar González-Pacheco, Analia Abt-Sack, V. Pacheco-Huergo, C. Orrego","doi":"10.5334/ijic.6554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)’ perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients’ values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.","PeriodicalId":14049,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Integrated Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice\",\"authors\":\"Alezandra Torres-Castaño, L. Perestelo-Pérez, D. Koatz, Vanesa Ramos-García, A. González-González, A. Toledo-Chávarri, C. Bermejo-Caja, Himar González-Pacheco, Analia Abt-Sack, V. Pacheco-Huergo, C. Orrego\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/ijic.6554\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)’ perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients’ values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Integrated Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Integrated Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.6554\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Integrated Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.6554","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:共同决策(SDM)是赋权过程中的一个核心部分,因为它有助于提高患者的积极性,使他们更有可能控制自己的医疗保健,并发展解决自身健康问题的技能。尽管有这些益处,但由于与环境和医疗系统相关的内外部因素,医疗保健专业人员在实施 SDM 方面仍存在困难。目的:根据初级保健专业人员(PCPs)的先入之见和临床实践经验,探讨他们对 SDM 模式的看法。方法:对定性分析进行框架分析:在 e-MPODERA 项目开发的群组随机临床试验中,对来自虚拟社区实践论坛的定性数据进行了框架分析。结果初级保健医生的意见中最重要的一点是:探索病人的价值观、偏好和期望,向他们提供最新的循证健康信息并检查他们对这些信息的理解。分析揭示了三个主题:SDM 实施过程的决定因素、缺乏一致性和困境,以及初级保健医生积极倾听的益处、SDM 的动机和积极期望。讨论:在初步分析中,我们研究了 TDC 模型的类别之间的联系及其在初级保健中的应用。与该模型相关的类别反映了专业人员的理论理解,而与应用和使用该模型的看法相关的类别则显示出一定的差异。这些差异可能表明,专业人员或机构对该模式及其现实世界的影响缺乏了解,或者没有做出足够的承诺来确保其有效实施。结论:针对知识、态度和实践的有针对性的具体培训可以解决上述发现的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice
Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)’ perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients’ values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.
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
International Journal of Integrated Care
International Journal of Integrated Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
887
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 2000, IJIC’s mission is to promote integrated care as a scientific discipline. IJIC’s primary purpose is to examine critically the policy and practice of integrated care and whether and how this has impacted on quality-of-care, user experiences, and cost-effectiveness. The journal regularly publishes conference supplements and special themed editions. To find out more contact Managing Editor, Susan Royer. The Journal is supported by the International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC).
×
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