对离散选择实验结果和COVID-19对患者虚拟咨询偏好的影响进行定性调查。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Anthony W Gilbert, Carl R May, Hazel Brown, Maria Stokes, Jeremy Jones
{"title":"对离散选择实验结果和COVID-19对患者虚拟咨询偏好的影响进行定性调查。","authors":"Anthony W Gilbert,&nbsp;Carl R May,&nbsp;Hazel Brown,&nbsp;Maria Stokes,&nbsp;Jeremy Jones","doi":"10.1186/s40945-021-00115-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":"11 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8419808/pdf/","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony W Gilbert,&nbsp;Carl R May,&nbsp;Hazel Brown,&nbsp;Maria Stokes,&nbsp;Jeremy Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-021-00115-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8419808/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00115-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00115-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的:对先前完成的离散选择实验(DCE)的参与者子集进行定性调查,以了解从DCE中确定的因素为何重要,他们如何影响对虚拟咨询(VC)的偏好,以及新冠肺炎如何影响对VC的偏好。方法:从参加我们的DCE的参与者中招募配额样本。我们特别针对那些强烈支持面对面咨询(F2F——定义为在DCE中选择全部或大部分F2F)或强烈支持虚拟咨询(VC——定义为选择DCE中全部或大部分VC咨询)的参与者,以引发一系列观点。访谈通过电话或视频会议进行,录音、逐字转录并上传到NVIVO软件中。根据DCE的结果和新冠肺炎对偏好的影响,根据编码框架对转录本进行了直接内容分析。结果:纳入8名F2F和5名VC参与者。较短的预约比较长的预约更不“值得”旅行,高峰时间的旅行会影响旅行是否可以接受,尤其是当患者因长途旅行而感到疼痛时。旅行费用、带薪休假、获得设备和支持等社会经济因素很重要。在临床上,体检更可取,而谈话疗法比VC更可取。一些参与者评论了VC如何干扰患者与临床医生的关系。新冠肺炎期间的VC为患者提供了几乎无需旅行即可获得护理的机会。对一些人来说,这是非常积极的。结论:本研究调查了先前完成的DCE的结果以及新冠肺炎对患者VC偏好的影响。获得了理论上的信息性见解来解释DCE结果。新冠肺炎大流行期间VC的使用提供了获得护理的机会,而无需面对面的社交互动。许多人认为,疫情过后,风险投资将变得更加普遍,而其他人则热衷于尽可能多地重返F2F咨询。这项定性研究为之前完成的DCE的结果提供了额外的背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A qualitative investigation into the results of a discrete choice experiment and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for virtual consultations.

Objectives: To conduct a qualitative investigation on a subset of participants from a previously completed Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to understand why factors identified from the DCE are important, how they influenced preference for virtual consultations (VC) and how COVID-19 has influenced preference for VC.

Methods: A quota sample was recruited from participants who participated in our DCE. We specifically targeted participants who were strongly in favour of face-to-face consultations (F2F - defined as choosing all or mostly F2F in the DCE) or strongly in favour of virtual consultations (VC - defined as choosing all or mostly VC consultations in the DCE) to elicit a range of views. Interviews were conducted via telephone or videoconference, audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVIVO software. A directed content analysis of transcripts was undertaken in accordance with a coding framework based on the results of the DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on preference.

Results: Eight F2F and 5 VC participants were included. Shorter appointments were less 'worth' travelling in for than a longer appointment and rush hour travel had an effect on whether travelling was acceptable, particularly when patients experienced pain as a result of extended journeys. Socioeconomic factors such as cost of travel, paid time off work, access to equipment and support in its use was important. Physical examinations were preferable in the clinic whereas talking therapies were acceptable over VC. Several participants commented on how VC interferes with the patient-clinician relationship. VC during COVID-19 has provided patients with the opportunity to access their care virtually without the need for travel. For some, this was extremely positive.

Conclusions: This study investigated the results of a previously completed DCE and the impact of COVID-19 on patient preferences for VC. Theoretically informative insights were gained to explain the results of the DCE. The use of VC during the COVID-19 pandemic provided opportunities to access care without the need for face-to-face social interactions. Many felt that VC would become more commonplace after the pandemic, whereas others were keen to return to F2F consultations as much as possible. This qualitative study provides additional context to the results of a previously completed DCE.

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
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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