提供者驱动的综合姑息治疗在线继续教育项目的发展和结果:随机对照试验。

Global advances in integrative medicine and health Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/27536130241309851
William Collinge, Leila Kozak, Scott Mist, Robert Soltysik
{"title":"提供者驱动的综合姑息治疗在线继续教育项目的发展和结果:随机对照试验。","authors":"William Collinge, Leila Kozak, Scott Mist, Robert Soltysik","doi":"10.1177/27536130241309851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrative therapies are increasingly in demand for both symptom management and quality of life in palliative care (PC) populations. Multidisciplinary PC professionals need continuing education/continuing medical education (CE/CME) to keep current on the evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC planning.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Elicit input from multidisciplinary PC providers on needs for CE/CME content on integrative care, and indicators of implementation for use in impact assessment. (2) Produce an online CE/CME program responsive to provider input. (3) Assess program impact on PC providers in a randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Focus groups with 47 multidisciplinary PC personnel assessed needs for CE/CME content and identified practice-related behaviors indicating implementation of integrative care. Qualitative analysis then informed development a 9-hour CE/CME program, and identified candidate items for an outcome measure (Integrative Practice Assessment) to assess impact. Validation testing followed with 63 new subjects. A randomized, waitlist-controlled trial then assessed program impact on (1) confidence understanding evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC, and (2) implementation of practice behaviors that promote integrative care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>213 subjects were randomized and 170 provided follow-up data on program impact. Subjects' confidence (10-point scale) understanding safety considerations increased from 5.4 to 8.7; recommending modalities, from 4.2 to 8.3; and explaining modalities, from 4.8 to 8.5. Direct actions promoting integrative care in the last 10 patient encounters increased (12.2 to 17.9). Indirect actions taken in the work setting increased in the past month to advocate integrative therapies (from 5.7 to 9.1), and to promote organizational change (from 10.9 to 18.2). (All outcomes <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This provider-driven CE/CME program led to significant positive changes in practitioners' self-efficacy and implementation of integrative care practices in PC settings. The results indicate that CE/CME can have measurable impacts that benefit providers and may potentially impact patients, families and the culture of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":73159,"journal":{"name":"Global advances in integrative medicine and health","volume":"14 ","pages":"27536130241309851"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707789/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Outcomes of a Provider-Driven, Online Continuing Education Program on Integrative Palliative Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"William Collinge, Leila Kozak, Scott Mist, Robert Soltysik\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27536130241309851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Integrative therapies are increasingly in demand for both symptom management and quality of life in palliative care (PC) populations. Multidisciplinary PC professionals need continuing education/continuing medical education (CE/CME) to keep current on the evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC planning.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) Elicit input from multidisciplinary PC providers on needs for CE/CME content on integrative care, and indicators of implementation for use in impact assessment. (2) Produce an online CE/CME program responsive to provider input. (3) Assess program impact on PC providers in a randomized controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Focus groups with 47 multidisciplinary PC personnel assessed needs for CE/CME content and identified practice-related behaviors indicating implementation of integrative care. Qualitative analysis then informed development a 9-hour CE/CME program, and identified candidate items for an outcome measure (Integrative Practice Assessment) to assess impact. Validation testing followed with 63 new subjects. A randomized, waitlist-controlled trial then assessed program impact on (1) confidence understanding evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC, and (2) implementation of practice behaviors that promote integrative care.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>213 subjects were randomized and 170 provided follow-up data on program impact. Subjects' confidence (10-point scale) understanding safety considerations increased from 5.4 to 8.7; recommending modalities, from 4.2 to 8.3; and explaining modalities, from 4.8 to 8.5. Direct actions promoting integrative care in the last 10 patient encounters increased (12.2 to 17.9). Indirect actions taken in the work setting increased in the past month to advocate integrative therapies (from 5.7 to 9.1), and to promote organizational change (from 10.9 to 18.2). (All outcomes <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This provider-driven CE/CME program led to significant positive changes in practitioners' self-efficacy and implementation of integrative care practices in PC settings. The results indicate that CE/CME can have measurable impacts that benefit providers and may potentially impact patients, families and the culture of care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global advances in integrative medicine and health\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"27536130241309851\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707789/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global advances in integrative medicine and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536130241309851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global advances in integrative medicine and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27536130241309851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在姑息治疗(PC)人群中,综合治疗对症状管理和生活质量的需求越来越大。多学科的PC专业人员需要继续教育/继续医学教育(CE/CME),以保持在PC计划中使用循证综合疗法的最新进展。目标:(1)从多学科PC供应商那里获得关于综合护理的CE/CME内容需求的输入,以及用于影响评估的实施指标。(2)根据供应商的输入,制作在线CE/CME课程。(3)通过随机对照试验评估项目对PC供应商的影响。方法:由47名多学科PC人员组成的焦点小组评估了CE/CME内容的需求,并确定了表明实施综合护理的实践相关行为。定性分析为9小时CE/CME项目的开发提供了信息,并确定了结果测量(综合实践评估)的候选项目,以评估影响。随后对63名新受试者进行验证测试。然后,一项随机、候补对照试验评估了项目对以下方面的影响:(1)对PC患者采用循证综合疗法的信心理解;(2)促进综合护理的实践行为实施。结果:213名受试者被随机化,170名受试者提供了项目影响的随访数据。受试者对安全考虑的理解信心(10分制)从5.4增加到8.7;推荐方式,从4.2到8.3;解释模式,从4.8到8.5。在最近10次患者接触中,促进综合护理的直接行动增加了(12.2到17.9)。在过去的一个月里,在工作环境中采取的间接行动增加了,倡导综合疗法(从5.7分增加到9.1分),促进组织变革(从10.9分增加到18.2分)。(所有结果P < 0.001)。结论:这个由提供者驱动的CE/CME项目导致了从业人员自我效能感的显著积极变化,并在PC设置中实施了综合护理实践。结果表明,CE/CME可以产生可衡量的影响,使提供者受益,并可能影响患者,家庭和护理文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Outcomes of a Provider-Driven, Online Continuing Education Program on Integrative Palliative Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Integrative therapies are increasingly in demand for both symptom management and quality of life in palliative care (PC) populations. Multidisciplinary PC professionals need continuing education/continuing medical education (CE/CME) to keep current on the evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC planning.

Objectives: (1) Elicit input from multidisciplinary PC providers on needs for CE/CME content on integrative care, and indicators of implementation for use in impact assessment. (2) Produce an online CE/CME program responsive to provider input. (3) Assess program impact on PC providers in a randomized controlled trial.

Methods: Focus groups with 47 multidisciplinary PC personnel assessed needs for CE/CME content and identified practice-related behaviors indicating implementation of integrative care. Qualitative analysis then informed development a 9-hour CE/CME program, and identified candidate items for an outcome measure (Integrative Practice Assessment) to assess impact. Validation testing followed with 63 new subjects. A randomized, waitlist-controlled trial then assessed program impact on (1) confidence understanding evidence-informed use of integrative therapies in PC, and (2) implementation of practice behaviors that promote integrative care.

Results: 213 subjects were randomized and 170 provided follow-up data on program impact. Subjects' confidence (10-point scale) understanding safety considerations increased from 5.4 to 8.7; recommending modalities, from 4.2 to 8.3; and explaining modalities, from 4.8 to 8.5. Direct actions promoting integrative care in the last 10 patient encounters increased (12.2 to 17.9). Indirect actions taken in the work setting increased in the past month to advocate integrative therapies (from 5.7 to 9.1), and to promote organizational change (from 10.9 to 18.2). (All outcomes P < .001).

Conclusion: This provider-driven CE/CME program led to significant positive changes in practitioners' self-efficacy and implementation of integrative care practices in PC settings. The results indicate that CE/CME can have measurable impacts that benefit providers and may potentially impact patients, families and the culture of care.

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
4.00
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