University of Manchester, UK.
J Adv Nurs. 2013 Apr;69(4):840-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.06069.x. Epub 2012 Jun 28.
This paper is a report of a qualitative study conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial comparing a lay-facilitated angina management programme with usual care. Its aim was to explore participants' beliefs, experiences, and attitudes to the care they had received during the trial, particularly those who had received the angina management intervention.
Angina affects over 50 million people worldwide. Over half of these people have symptoms that restrict their daily life and would benefit from knowing how to manage their condition.
A nested qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial of lay-facilitated angina management.
We conducted four participant focus groups during 2008; three were with people randomized to the intervention and one with those randomized to control. We recruited a total of 14 participants to the focus groups, 10 intervention, and 4 control.
Although recruitment to the focus groups was relatively low by comparison to conventional standards, each generated lively discussions and a rich data set. Data analysis demonstrated both similarities and differences between control and intervention groups. Similarities included low levels of prior knowledge about angina, whereas differences included a perception among intervention participants that lifestyle changes were more easily facilitated with the help and support of a lay-worker.
Lay facilitation with the Angina Plan is perceived by the participants to be beneficial in supporting self-management. However, clinical expertise is still required to meet the more complex information and care needs of people with stable angina.
本文是一项定性研究的报告,该研究是一项随机对照试验的一部分,旨在比较由非专业人员实施的心绞痛管理方案与常规护理。其目的是探讨参与者对他们在试验期间所接受的护理的信念、经验和态度,特别是那些接受心绞痛管理干预的参与者。
心绞痛影响着全球超过 5000 万人。这些人中超过一半的人有症状,这些症状限制了他们的日常生活,他们需要知道如何管理自己的病情。
在一项由非专业人员实施的心绞痛管理的随机对照试验中进行嵌套式定性研究。
我们在 2008 年期间进行了四次参与者焦点小组讨论;其中三个是与随机分配到干预组的人进行的,一个是与随机分配到对照组的人进行的。我们总共招募了 14 名参与者参加焦点小组,其中 10 名是干预组,4 名是对照组。
尽管与传统标准相比,焦点小组的招募相对较低,但每个小组都进行了生动的讨论,产生了丰富的数据集。数据分析显示,对照组和干预组之间既有相似之处,也有不同之处。相似之处包括对心绞痛的知识水平较低,而不同之处包括干预组的参与者认为,在非专业人员的帮助和支持下,生活方式的改变更容易实现。
参与者认为,由非专业人员实施的心绞痛计划在支持自我管理方面是有益的。然而,对于稳定型心绞痛患者的更复杂的信息和护理需求,仍然需要临床专业知识。