低收入社区预先护理规划干预的基本特征:定性研究。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Christine C Kimpel, Erica Frechman, Lorely Chavez, Cathy A Maxwell
{"title":"低收入社区预先护理规划干预的基本特征:定性研究。","authors":"Christine C Kimpel, Erica Frechman, Lorely Chavez, Cathy A Maxwell","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.09.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Older adults with low socioeconomic status (SES) participate in advance care planning (ACP) at lower rates than those with higher SES. Community feedback is an essential component of intervention design for communities with fewer social and health resources to ensure that the intervention is relevant and meaningful.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand the perspectives for potential interventions, we aimed to qualitatively explore participant priorities for ACP intervention development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a qualitative descriptive design, we recruited and conducted individual and one-time, semi-structured interviews with older adults (aged 50+) with low income (< $20,000/year) (n = 20), Recruitment methods included flyers and in-person recruitment and purposive and snowball sampling methods. Following a thematic analysis plan, themes emerged from recursive transcript review by two independent coders and inductive categorization of the most robust codes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two themes captured participants' perspectives regarding ACP intervention development: 1) specialist advocacy and reliability and 2) person-centered communication. Older adults with low SES prioritize ACP communication that is driven by their goals and that is led by trustworthy specialists that advocate for their needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our work highlights that intervention preferences were informed by the prior strain and struggle of waiting on other kinds of health and social services. We propose an adapted model for community research collaboration to promote equity in addition to practice and policy recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":" ","pages":"e46-e52"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Essential Advance Care Planning Intervention Features in Low-Income Communities: A Qualitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Christine C Kimpel, Erica Frechman, Lorely Chavez, Cathy A Maxwell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.09.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Older adults with low socioeconomic status (SES) participate in advance care planning (ACP) at lower rates than those with higher SES. Community feedback is an essential component of intervention design for communities with fewer social and health resources to ensure that the intervention is relevant and meaningful.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To understand the perspectives for potential interventions, we aimed to qualitatively explore participant priorities for ACP intervention development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a qualitative descriptive design, we recruited and conducted individual and one-time, semi-structured interviews with older adults (aged 50+) with low income (< $20,000/year) (n = 20), Recruitment methods included flyers and in-person recruitment and purposive and snowball sampling methods. Following a thematic analysis plan, themes emerged from recursive transcript review by two independent coders and inductive categorization of the most robust codes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two themes captured participants' perspectives regarding ACP intervention development: 1) specialist advocacy and reliability and 2) person-centered communication. Older adults with low SES prioritize ACP communication that is driven by their goals and that is led by trustworthy specialists that advocate for their needs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our work highlights that intervention preferences were informed by the prior strain and struggle of waiting on other kinds of health and social services. We propose an adapted model for community research collaboration to promote equity in addition to practice and policy recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pain and symptom management\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e46-e52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pain and symptom management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.09.018\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.09.018","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与社会经济地位较高的老年人相比,社会经济地位较低的老年人参与预先护理计划(ACP)的比例较低。对于社会和健康资源较少的社区来说,社区反馈是干预设计的重要组成部分,以确保干预的相关性和意义:为了了解潜在干预措施的视角,我们旨在从定性角度探讨参与者在制定 ACP 干预措施时的优先考虑事项:方法:采用定性描述设计,我们招募并对低收入老年人(50 岁以上)进行了个人和一次性半结构化访谈:两个主题反映了参与者对 ACP 干预发展的看法:1)专家宣传和可靠性;2)以人为本的沟通。社会经济地位较低的老年人优先考虑由他们的目标驱动、由值得信赖的专家领导、倡导他们需求的 ACP 沟通:我们的工作强调,干预偏好是由之前等待其他类型医疗和社会服务的压力和挣扎所决定的。除了实践和政策建议外,我们还提出了一个经过调整的社区研究合作模式,以促进公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Essential Advance Care Planning Intervention Features in Low-Income Communities: A Qualitative Study.

Context: Older adults with low socioeconomic status (SES) participate in advance care planning (ACP) at lower rates than those with higher SES. Community feedback is an essential component of intervention design for communities with fewer social and health resources to ensure that the intervention is relevant and meaningful.

Objectives: To understand the perspectives for potential interventions, we aimed to qualitatively explore participant priorities for ACP intervention development.

Methods: Using a qualitative descriptive design, we recruited and conducted individual and one-time, semi-structured interviews with older adults (aged 50+) with low income (< $20,000/year) (n = 20), Recruitment methods included flyers and in-person recruitment and purposive and snowball sampling methods. Following a thematic analysis plan, themes emerged from recursive transcript review by two independent coders and inductive categorization of the most robust codes.

Results: Two themes captured participants' perspectives regarding ACP intervention development: 1) specialist advocacy and reliability and 2) person-centered communication. Older adults with low SES prioritize ACP communication that is driven by their goals and that is led by trustworthy specialists that advocate for their needs.

Conclusion: Our work highlights that intervention preferences were informed by the prior strain and struggle of waiting on other kinds of health and social services. We propose an adapted model for community research collaboration to promote equity in addition to practice and policy recommendations.

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
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
6.40%
发文量
821
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.
×
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