使用混合方法与多个利益相关者告知发展乳腺癌筛查决策援助妇女有限的健康素养。

IF 1.7
MDM policy & practice Pub Date : 2021-07-20 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1177/23814683211033249
Christine M Gunn, Ariel Maschke, Michael K Paasche-Orlow, Ashley J Housten, Nancy R Kressin, Mara A Schonberg, Tracy A Battaglia
{"title":"使用混合方法与多个利益相关者告知发展乳腺癌筛查决策援助妇女有限的健康素养。","authors":"Christine M Gunn,&nbsp;Ariel Maschke,&nbsp;Michael K Paasche-Orlow,&nbsp;Ashley J Housten,&nbsp;Nancy R Kressin,&nbsp;Mara A Schonberg,&nbsp;Tracy A Battaglia","doi":"10.1177/23814683211033249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background.</b> When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. <b>Objectives.</b> This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. <b>Design.</b> A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. <b>Results.</b> Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. <b>Limitations.</b> As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. <b>Conclusions.</b> Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":520707,"journal":{"name":"MDM policy & practice","volume":" ","pages":"23814683211033249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23814683211033249","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.\",\"authors\":\"Christine M Gunn,&nbsp;Ariel Maschke,&nbsp;Michael K Paasche-Orlow,&nbsp;Ashley J Housten,&nbsp;Nancy R Kressin,&nbsp;Mara A Schonberg,&nbsp;Tracy A Battaglia\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23814683211033249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background.</b> When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. <b>Objectives.</b> This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. <b>Design.</b> A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. <b>Results.</b> Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. <b>Limitations.</b> As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. <b>Conclusions.</b> Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MDM policy & practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"23814683211033249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/23814683211033249\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MDM policy & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211033249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MDM policy & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683211033249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景。当利益相关者提供不同的输入时,如何优先考虑乳房x光检查决策辅助(DAs)的信息是不清楚的。目标。该分析对不同视角(乳腺癌筛查专家、初级保健提供者(pcp)和健康素养有限的患者(LHL))进行了三角分析,以了解在为年轻LHL女性制定乳腺癌筛查决策时,利益相关者群体之间存在的分歧和趋同。设计。一个由8位专家组成的修改后的在线德尔菲小组对57项声明进行了三轮评估,以纳入乳腺癌筛查DA。对一家大型安全网医院的25名LHL患者和20名pcp进行了个别访谈,探讨了乳房x光检查决策的信息需求。来自定性访谈的代码和来自德尔菲过程的开放式回应在利益相关者之间进行映射,以确定利益相关者偏好趋同或分歧的领域。结果。确定了关于信息需求的四个主题:1)筛查的益处和危害,2)不同的筛查方式,3)乳房x光检查的经验,以及4)关于乳腺癌风险的沟通。患者认为疼痛是主要的危害,而pcp和专家则强调假阳性的危害。患者,而不是pcp或专家,认为关于乳房x光检查过程的信息很重要。pcp认为乳房x光检查是唯一的循证筛查方式,而患者认为乳房自我检查对筛查也很重要。所有利益相关者都认为纳入个人风险信息非常重要。的局限性。由于参与者来自一家医院,因此看法可能反映了当地的做法。德尔菲样本量较小。结论。患者、专家和pcp对筛查决策所需的最重要信息有不同的看法。需要更多的证据来指导将多个利益相关者的观点整合到DAs的内容中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy.

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信