{"title":"共同决策:一种个性化治疗阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停的新方法","authors":"Caroline Tonje Øverby , Prasanthy Sutharshan , Pål Gulbrandsen , Toril Dammen , Harald Hrubos-Strøm","doi":"10.1016/j.sleepx.2022.100052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objectives</h3><p>i) To describe a novel approach of phenotyping by shared decision making (SDM) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) discharge consultations ii) to describe correlation between patient and observer based evaluations of SDM and iii) to describe treatment adherence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Consecutive patients referred to the otorhinolaryngology department at Akershus University Hospital with suspected OSA between 2015 and 2016 participated. Patients with body mass index >30 were oversampled. Four male communication-trained doctors aged from 30 to 60 years participated. SDM was evaluated by modified content analysis and by the CollaboRATE self-report questionnaire and the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale. Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence and weight reduction was assessed by interview at six year follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighteen consultations were video filmed. The content analysis revealed that the patient perspectives only briefly were explored. PAP was chosen by 17 of 18 patients. Median CollaboRATE questionnaire score was 29 (26, 30). Mean OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5] score was 65.6 (SD 6.6, range 55–80). The correlation between SDM assessed by CollaboRATE self-report and by the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale was low (Pearson's r = 0.09). At follow up, 11 patients (64.7%) were PAP adherent and no one achieved 10% weight loss.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite a high degree of SDM compared to studies of non-OSA populations, the sub-optimal exploration of the patient perspective by communication-trained doctors precluded identification of patients willing to cope actively. SDM assessed by self-report and by a rating scale may represent two different constructs. PAP adherence was good.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37065,"journal":{"name":"Sleep Medicine: X","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100052"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/86/80/main.PMC9418975.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared decision making: A novel approach to personalized treatment in obstructive sleep apnea\",\"authors\":\"Caroline Tonje Øverby , Prasanthy Sutharshan , Pål Gulbrandsen , Toril Dammen , Harald Hrubos-Strøm\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sleepx.2022.100052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study objectives</h3><p>i) To describe a novel approach of phenotyping by shared decision making (SDM) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) discharge consultations ii) to describe correlation between patient and observer based evaluations of SDM and iii) to describe treatment adherence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Consecutive patients referred to the otorhinolaryngology department at Akershus University Hospital with suspected OSA between 2015 and 2016 participated. Patients with body mass index >30 were oversampled. Four male communication-trained doctors aged from 30 to 60 years participated. SDM was evaluated by modified content analysis and by the CollaboRATE self-report questionnaire and the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale. Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence and weight reduction was assessed by interview at six year follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eighteen consultations were video filmed. The content analysis revealed that the patient perspectives only briefly were explored. PAP was chosen by 17 of 18 patients. Median CollaboRATE questionnaire score was 29 (26, 30). Mean OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5] score was 65.6 (SD 6.6, range 55–80). The correlation between SDM assessed by CollaboRATE self-report and by the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale was low (Pearson's r = 0.09). At follow up, 11 patients (64.7%) were PAP adherent and no one achieved 10% weight loss.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Despite a high degree of SDM compared to studies of non-OSA populations, the sub-optimal exploration of the patient perspective by communication-trained doctors precluded identification of patients willing to cope actively. SDM assessed by self-report and by a rating scale may represent two different constructs. PAP adherence was good.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sleep Medicine: X\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100052\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/86/80/main.PMC9418975.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sleep Medicine: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590142722000118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sleep Medicine: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590142722000118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
研究目的:1)描述一种通过共同决策(SDM)在阻塞性睡眠呼吸暂停(OSA)出院会诊中进行表型分析的新方法;2)描述基于SDM的患者和观察者评估之间的相关性;3)描述治疗依从性。方法选取2015 - 2016年在阿克舒斯大学附属医院耳鼻喉科就诊的疑似OSA患者。对体重指数为30的患者进行过采样。四名年龄在30至60岁之间接受过沟通培训的男性医生参与了研究。SDM通过修改内容分析、协作自我报告问卷和“观察者选项(Young et al., 2008)[5]”评定量表进行评估。随访6年,通过访谈评估气道正压治疗依从性和体重减轻情况。结果对18例会诊进行录像。内容分析显示,只是简单地探讨了患者的观点。18例患者中有17例选择PAP。协作问卷得分中位数为29(26,30)。平均OPTION (Young et al., 2008)[5]评分为65.6 (SD 6.6,范围55-80)。协作自我报告评估的SDM与“观察者选项(Young et al., 2008)[5]”评定量表之间的相关性较低(Pearson’s r = 0.09)。随访时,11例患者(64.7%)坚持PAP治疗,没有患者体重减轻10%。结论:尽管与非osa人群的研究相比,osa患者的SDM程度较高,但经过沟通培训的医生对患者视角的探索不够理想,妨碍了识别愿意积极应对的患者。通过自我报告和评定量表评估的SDM可能代表两种不同的构念。PAP依从性良好。
Shared decision making: A novel approach to personalized treatment in obstructive sleep apnea
Study objectives
i) To describe a novel approach of phenotyping by shared decision making (SDM) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) discharge consultations ii) to describe correlation between patient and observer based evaluations of SDM and iii) to describe treatment adherence.
Methods
Consecutive patients referred to the otorhinolaryngology department at Akershus University Hospital with suspected OSA between 2015 and 2016 participated. Patients with body mass index >30 were oversampled. Four male communication-trained doctors aged from 30 to 60 years participated. SDM was evaluated by modified content analysis and by the CollaboRATE self-report questionnaire and the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale. Positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment adherence and weight reduction was assessed by interview at six year follow-up.
Results
Eighteen consultations were video filmed. The content analysis revealed that the patient perspectives only briefly were explored. PAP was chosen by 17 of 18 patients. Median CollaboRATE questionnaire score was 29 (26, 30). Mean OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5] score was 65.6 (SD 6.6, range 55–80). The correlation between SDM assessed by CollaboRATE self-report and by the “Observer OPTION (Young et al., 2008) [5]” rating scale was low (Pearson's r = 0.09). At follow up, 11 patients (64.7%) were PAP adherent and no one achieved 10% weight loss.
Conclusions
Despite a high degree of SDM compared to studies of non-OSA populations, the sub-optimal exploration of the patient perspective by communication-trained doctors precluded identification of patients willing to cope actively. SDM assessed by self-report and by a rating scale may represent two different constructs. PAP adherence was good.