患者咨询期间积极健康对话的核心要素:荷兰专家和用户意见定性研究探索

Eva Aalbers, Miriam de Kleijn, Marja van Vliet, Marieke Spreeuwenberg
{"title":"患者咨询期间积极健康对话的核心要素:荷兰专家和用户意见定性研究探索","authors":"Eva Aalbers, Miriam de Kleijn, Marja van Vliet, Marieke Spreeuwenberg","doi":"10.1101/2024.07.19.24310586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The Alternative Dialogue (PHD), a dialogue technique which is based on Positive Health, is considered a potential method to improve patient-centred care within the Netherlands. This study aims to provide clarity on the core elements of the PHD and aims to assess to what extent the practical application of the PHD aligns with these core elements. Design: An exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting: The study was conducted among health professionals working in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. Participants: Thirteen experts were purposely sampled and included based on their involvement in the development, implementation or research of the PHD. Additionally, seven users, who applied the PHD in patient consultations and worked as a primary or secondary health professional participated, both self-selected and purposively sampled. They were included if they participated in a Positive Health training. Results: The analysis revealed consensus among experts and users about prioritizing the patient's perspective, adopting a holistic health view, and promoting self-management and empowerment as main guiding principles. Consensus was also found regarding professional attitude, goals and outcomes and implementation conditions. Variability was observed in the role of behaviour change support as a guiding principle. Further, the PHD as intended by its developers seems more structured and comprehensive than often applied in practice. Discrepancies also emerged regarding target patient groups and applicable settings, highlighting the need for customization and tailored guidance within diverse contexts. Conclusions: While there is alignment on the main guiding principles of PHD, there are varying opinions regarding its specific tools and techniques. Clarity in terminology and delineation of the PHD, along with customization for diverse contexts, is crucial to address these challenges and to determine its effectiveness. This study provides initial insights to inform future research and practice in PHD implementation.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Core elements of the Positive Health dialogue during patient consultations: a qualitative study exploring expert and user opinions in the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Eva Aalbers, Miriam de Kleijn, Marja van Vliet, Marieke Spreeuwenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.07.19.24310586\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The Alternative Dialogue (PHD), a dialogue technique which is based on Positive Health, is considered a potential method to improve patient-centred care within the Netherlands. This study aims to provide clarity on the core elements of the PHD and aims to assess to what extent the practical application of the PHD aligns with these core elements. Design: An exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting: The study was conducted among health professionals working in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. Participants: Thirteen experts were purposely sampled and included based on their involvement in the development, implementation or research of the PHD. Additionally, seven users, who applied the PHD in patient consultations and worked as a primary or secondary health professional participated, both self-selected and purposively sampled. They were included if they participated in a Positive Health training. Results: The analysis revealed consensus among experts and users about prioritizing the patient's perspective, adopting a holistic health view, and promoting self-management and empowerment as main guiding principles. Consensus was also found regarding professional attitude, goals and outcomes and implementation conditions. Variability was observed in the role of behaviour change support as a guiding principle. Further, the PHD as intended by its developers seems more structured and comprehensive than often applied in practice. Discrepancies also emerged regarding target patient groups and applicable settings, highlighting the need for customization and tailored guidance within diverse contexts. Conclusions: While there is alignment on the main guiding principles of PHD, there are varying opinions regarding its specific tools and techniques. Clarity in terminology and delineation of the PHD, along with customization for diverse contexts, is crucial to address these challenges and to determine its effectiveness. This study provides initial insights to inform future research and practice in PHD implementation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.19.24310586\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.19.24310586","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:替代性对话(PHD)是一种以积极健康为基础的对话技术,被认为是在荷兰改善以患者为中心的护理的一种潜在方法。本研究旨在明确 PHD 的核心要素,并评估 PHD 的实际应用在多大程度上符合这些核心要素。设计:采用半结构式访谈进行探索性定性研究。研究环境:研究对象为在荷兰初级和二级医疗机构工作的医疗专业人员。参与者:根据参与 PHD 开发、实施或研究的情况,特意抽取了 13 名专家作为研究对象。此外,还有七名在病人咨询中使用 PHD 的初级或中级医疗专业人员参加,他们既是自选的,也是有目的的抽样。只要他们参加过积极健康培训,就会被纳入其中。结果分析表明,专家和用户一致认为,优先考虑患者的观点、采用整体健康观、促进自我管理和赋权是主要的指导原则。在专业态度、目标和结果以及实施条件方面也达成了共识。在行为改变支持作为指导原则的作用方面则存在差异。此外,PHD 的开发者所希望的 PHD 似乎比实际应用中更有条理、更全面。在目标患者群体和适用环境方面也出现了差异,这凸显了在不同情况下进行定制和量身指导的必要性。结论:PHD 的主要指导原则是一致的,但对其具体工具和技术却存在不同意见。要应对这些挑战并确定其有效性,明确 PHD 的术语和定义以及针对不同情况的定制至关重要。本研究提供了初步的见解,为今后实施 PHD 的研究和实践提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Core elements of the Positive Health dialogue during patient consultations: a qualitative study exploring expert and user opinions in the Netherlands
Objectives: The Alternative Dialogue (PHD), a dialogue technique which is based on Positive Health, is considered a potential method to improve patient-centred care within the Netherlands. This study aims to provide clarity on the core elements of the PHD and aims to assess to what extent the practical application of the PHD aligns with these core elements. Design: An exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Setting: The study was conducted among health professionals working in primary and secondary care in the Netherlands. Participants: Thirteen experts were purposely sampled and included based on their involvement in the development, implementation or research of the PHD. Additionally, seven users, who applied the PHD in patient consultations and worked as a primary or secondary health professional participated, both self-selected and purposively sampled. They were included if they participated in a Positive Health training. Results: The analysis revealed consensus among experts and users about prioritizing the patient's perspective, adopting a holistic health view, and promoting self-management and empowerment as main guiding principles. Consensus was also found regarding professional attitude, goals and outcomes and implementation conditions. Variability was observed in the role of behaviour change support as a guiding principle. Further, the PHD as intended by its developers seems more structured and comprehensive than often applied in practice. Discrepancies also emerged regarding target patient groups and applicable settings, highlighting the need for customization and tailored guidance within diverse contexts. Conclusions: While there is alignment on the main guiding principles of PHD, there are varying opinions regarding its specific tools and techniques. Clarity in terminology and delineation of the PHD, along with customization for diverse contexts, is crucial to address these challenges and to determine its effectiveness. This study provides initial insights to inform future research and practice in PHD implementation.
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