• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

通过患者赋权计划转变患者角色以实现更好的结果:一项随机等待列表对照试验方案

Transforming the Patient Role to Achieve Better Outcomes Through a Patient Empowerment Program: A Randomized Wait-List Control Trial Protocol.

作者信息

Altshuler Lisa, Plaksin Joseph, Zabar Sondra, Wallach Andrew, Sawicki Chester, Kundrod Sarita, Kalet Adina

机构信息

Program on Medical Education, Innovations and Research (PrMEIR), Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Innovation, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.

出版信息

JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Apr 21;5(2):e68. doi: 10.2196/resprot.5376.

DOI:10.2196/resprot.5376
PMID:27103306
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4858596/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In the patient-centered medical home model of health care, both health care providers (HCPs) and patients must understand their respective roles and responsibilities, view the other as a partner, and use communication skills that promote shared decision making. This is particularly necessary in chronic conditions where outcomes depend on behavior change and in underserved populations where the burden of chronic disease is high.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to determine if a Patient Empowerment Program (PEP) (1) is acceptable to patients and feasible across multiple clinical sites; (2) will increase patient preference for control in medical decision making, improve patient perceptions of patient-HCP communication, and increase patient activation; (3) is associated with an increase in diabetes self-management behaviors; and (4) has an effect on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level.

METHODS

This study recruited English-speaking adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from three urban clinical sites in New York City and randomized them to an immediate intervention group that completed the PEP intervention or a deferred intervention group that served as a wait-list control and completed the PEP intervention after 3-4 months. The PEP intervention consists of two facilitated small group sessions. Session 1 focuses on defining HCP and patient roles in the medical encounter by introducing ideal communication behaviors in each role and by providing both positive and negative examples of patient-HCP encounters. Session 2 focuses on practicing communication skills by role-playing with actors who serve as standardized health care providers. After the role play, participants set goals for their own health care and for future interactions with their HCPs. Outcome measures include the Patient Activation Measure; Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment; Krantz Health Opinion Survey; SF-12v2 Health Survey; Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire; and HbA1c. These measures will be assessed at the time of enrollment, after the waiting period (deferred intervention only), and then postintervention at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months.

RESULTS

Study recruitment occurred from November 2014 to June 2015, with a total of 80 patients enrolled. To date, 45 participants have attended at least one session of the PEP intervention. Further intervention sessions and post-intervention follow-up are ongoing, with data collection set to be completed in April 2016 and results of data analysis available by June 2016.

CONCLUSIONS

From preliminary participant self-report data, our PEP intervention is acceptable to low-income, low-health literate patients and feasible to hold across multiple clinical sites. Participants have reported learning specific ways to change their behaviors at their next HCP visit (eg, stating their opinions, asking more questions). With the forthcoming quantitative data on participant attitudinal and behavior change, the PEP intervention may ultimately empower participants within the medical encounter and improve health outcomes.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0148/4858596/1bea479cce95/resprot_v5i2e68_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0148/4858596/8f4e5b6a7763/resprot_v5i2e68_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0148/4858596/1bea479cce95/resprot_v5i2e68_fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0148/4858596/8f4e5b6a7763/resprot_v5i2e68_fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0148/4858596/1bea479cce95/resprot_v5i2e68_fig2.jpg
摘要

背景

在以患者为中心的医疗家庭保健模式中,医疗保健提供者(HCPs)和患者都必须了解各自的角色和责任,将对方视为合作伙伴,并运用促进共同决策的沟通技巧。这在慢性病(其治疗结果取决于行为改变)以及慢性病负担较高的服务不足人群中尤为必要。

目的

本研究的目的是确定患者赋权计划(PEP)(1)是否为患者所接受且在多个临床场所可行;(2)是否会增加患者在医疗决策中对控制权的偏好,改善患者对医患沟通的认知,并提高患者的积极性;(3)是否与糖尿病自我管理行为的增加相关;以及(4)对糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)水平是否有影响。

方法

本研究从纽约市的三个城市临床场所招募了讲英语的成年2型糖尿病患者,并将他们随机分为立即干预组(完成PEP干预)或延迟干预组(作为等待名单对照,在3 - 4个月后完成PEP干预)。PEP干预包括两次有指导的小组会议。第一次会议通过介绍每个角色中的理想沟通行为以及提供医患互动的正面和负面例子,重点在于明确医疗互动中HCP和患者的角色。第二次会议通过与充当标准化医疗保健提供者的演员进行角色扮演来练习沟通技巧。角色扮演后,参与者为自己的医疗保健以及未来与HCP的互动设定目标。结果测量包括患者积极性测量;询问、理解、记忆评估;克兰茨健康意见调查;SF - 12v2健康调查;糖尿病自我管理问卷;以及HbA1c。这些测量将在入组时、等待期后(仅延迟干预组)以及干预后1周、3个月和6个月进行评估。

结果

研究招募工作于2014年11月至2015年6月进行,共有80名患者入组。迄今为止,45名参与者至少参加了一次PEP干预会议。进一步的干预会议和干预后随访正在进行中,数据收集定于2016年4月完成,数据分析结果将于2016年6月可得。

结论

根据初步的参与者自我报告数据,我们的PEP干预对于低收入、健康素养低的患者是可接受的,并且在多个临床场所开展是可行的。参与者报告称学到了在下一次看HCP时改变行为的具体方法(例如,表达自己的意见、多提问)。随着即将获得的关于参与者态度和行为改变的定量数据,PEP干预最终可能会在医疗互动中增强参与者的能力并改善健康结果。

相似文献

1
Transforming the Patient Role to Achieve Better Outcomes Through a Patient Empowerment Program: A Randomized Wait-List Control Trial Protocol.通过患者赋权计划转变患者角色以实现更好的结果:一项随机等待列表对照试验方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2016 Apr 21;5(2):e68. doi: 10.2196/resprot.5376.
2
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
3
Virtualized clinical studies to assess the natural history and impact of gut microbiome modulation in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 a randomized, open-label, prospective study with a parallel group study evaluating the physiologic effects of KB109 on gut microbiota structure and function: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled study.用于评估非住院轻中度 COVID-19 患者肠道微生物组调节的自然史和影响的虚拟化临床研究:一项随机、开放标签、前瞻性研究,平行组研究评估 KB109 对肠道微生物组结构和功能的生理影响:一项随机对照研究方案的结构化总结。
Trials. 2021 Apr 2;22(1):245. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05157-0.
4
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
5
Structured, intensive education maximising engagement, motivation and long-term change for children and young people with diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluation - the CASCADE study.结构化、强化教育最大限度地提高糖尿病患儿和青少年的参与度、积极性和长期改变:一项具有整体过程和经济评估的群组随机对照试验 - CASCADE 研究。
Health Technol Assess. 2014 Mar;18(20):1-202. doi: 10.3310/hta18200.
6
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.基于互联网的电子学习对临床医生行为和患者结局的有效性:一项系统评价方案。
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):52-64. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1919.
7
8
Adult patient access to electronic health records.成年患者获取电子健康记录。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 26;2(2):CD012707. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012707.pub2.
9
Comparison of Collaborative Goal Setting With Enhanced Education for Managing Diabetes-Associated Distress and Hemoglobin A1c Levels: A Randomized Clinical Trial.比较协作性目标设定与强化教育在管理糖尿病相关困扰和糖化血红蛋白水平方面的效果:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e229975. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.9975.
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.提高医疗保健专业人员共同决策使用率的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 19;7(7):CD006732. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006732.pub4.
2
Promoting patient participation in healthcare interactions through communication skills training: A systematic review.通过沟通技巧培训促进患者参与医疗互动:系统评价。
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Jul;100(7):1247-1257. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.02.016. Epub 2017 Feb 16.

本文引用的文献

1
'We might as well be speaking different languages': an innovative interprofessional education tool to teach and assess communication skills critical to patient safety.“我们简直像是在说不同的语言”:一种创新的跨专业教育工具,用于教授和评估对患者安全至关重要的沟通技巧。
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn. 2015 Aug 25;1(2):54-60. doi: 10.1136/bmjstel-2014-000014. eCollection 2015.
2
The Standardized Professional Encounter: A New Model to Assess Professionalism and Communication Skills.标准化专业问诊:一种评估专业素养和沟通技巧的新模式。
J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Jun;7(2):230-3. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00275.1.
3
The Benefits and Risks of Being a Standardized Patient: A Narrative Review of the Literature.
作为标准化病人的益处与风险:文献叙述性综述
Patient. 2016 Feb;9(1):15-25. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0127-y.
4
Response to a patient activation intervention among Spanish-speaking patients at a community health center in New York City.纽约市一家社区健康中心针对说西班牙语患者的患者激活干预措施的效果
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014 May;25(2):591-604. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2014.0110.
5
Effect of emotionally complex roles on HIV-related simulated patients.情感复杂角色对艾滋病相关模拟患者的影响。
Hisp Health Care Int. 2013;11(2):72-7. doi: 10.1891/1540-4153.11.2.72.
6
"Many miles to go …": a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice.“路漫漫其修远兮……”:一项将患者决策支持干预措施融入常规临床实践中的系统评价。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S14. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S14. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
7
Extending simulation learning experiences to patients with chronic health conditions.将模拟学习体验扩展至患有慢性健康状况的患者。
JAMA. 2014 Jan 15;311(3):243-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.283057.
8
Knowledge is not power for patients: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of patient-reported barriers and facilitators to shared decision making.知识并非患者的力量:系统综述和主题综合分析患者报告的共享决策障碍和促进因素。
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Mar;94(3):291-309. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.031. Epub 2013 Nov 9.
9
The Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire (DSMQ): development and evaluation of an instrument to assess diabetes self-care activities associated with glycaemic control.糖尿病自我管理问卷(DSMQ):一种评估与血糖控制相关的糖尿病自我护理活动的工具的开发和评估。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Aug 13;11:138. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-138.
10
The patient is in: patient involvement strategies for diagnostic error mitigation.患者处于:参与策略可减轻诊断错误。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Oct;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):ii33-ii39. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001623. Epub 2013 Jul 26.