Suppr超能文献

让弱势群体成员参与患者决策辅助工具的开发:一项混合方法的序贯解释性研究。

Involving members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids: a mixed methods sequential explanatory study.

作者信息

Dugas Michèle, Trottier Marie-Ève, Chipenda Dansokho Selma, Vaisson Gratianne, Provencher Thierry, Colquhoun Heather, Dogba Maman Joyce, Dupéré Sophie, Fagerlin Angela, Giguere Anik M C, Haslett Lynne, Hoffman Aubri S, Ivers Noah M, Légaré France, Légaré Jean, Levin Carrie A, Menear Matthew, Renaud Jean-Sébastien, Stacey Dawn, Volk Robert J, Witteman Holly O

机构信息

Office of Education and Professional Development, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.

Research Centre of the CHU de Québec, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Quebec City, QC, G1V 0A6, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Jan 19;17(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0399-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids aim to present evidence relevant to a health decision in understandable ways to support patients through the process of making evidence-informed, values-congruent health decisions. It is recommended that, when developing these tools, teams involve people who may ultimately use them. However, there is little empirical evidence about how best to undertake this involvement, particularly for specific populations of users such as vulnerable populations.

METHODS

To describe and compare the development practices of research teams that did and did not specifically involve members of vulnerable populations in the development of patient decision aids, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a systematic review about the development processes of patient decision aids. Then, to further explain our quantitative results, we conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 10 teams: 6 that had specifically involved members of vulnerable populations and 4 that had not. Two independent analysts thematically coded transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 187 decision aid development projects, 30 (16%) specifically involved members of vulnerable populations. The specific involvement of members of vulnerable populations in the development process was associated with conducting informal needs assessment activities (73% vs. 40%, OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.18-7.99, P = .02) and recruiting participants through community-based organizations (40% vs. 11%, OR 3.48, 95% CI 1.23-9.83, P = .02). In interviews, all developers highlighted the importance, value and challenges of involving potential users. Interviews with developers whose projects had involved members of vulnerable populations suggested that informal needs assessment activities served to center the decision aid around users' needs, to better avoid stigma, and to ensure that the topic truly matters to the community. Partnering with community-based organizations may facilitate relationships of trust and may also provide a non-threatening and accessible location for research activities.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a small number of key differences in the development processes for patient decision aids in which members of vulnerable populations were or were not specifically involved. Some of these practices may require additional time or resources. To address health inequities, researchers, communities and funders may need to increase awareness of these approaches and plan accordingly.

摘要

背景

患者决策辅助工具旨在以易懂的方式呈现与健康决策相关的证据,以支持患者做出基于证据、符合价值观的健康决策。建议在开发这些工具时,团队应让最终可能使用它们的人员参与其中。然而,关于如何最好地进行这种参与,尤其是针对弱势群体等特定用户群体,几乎没有实证证据。

方法

为了描述和比较在患者决策辅助工具开发过程中是否专门让弱势群体成员参与的研究团队的开发实践,我们对一项关于患者决策辅助工具开发过程的系统评价数据进行了二次分析。然后,为了进一步解释我们的定量结果,我们对10个团队进行了半结构化电话访谈:6个团队专门让弱势群体成员参与,4个团队没有。两名独立分析师对转录的访谈进行了主题编码。

结果

在总共187个决策辅助工具开发项目中,30个(16%)专门让弱势群体成员参与。弱势群体成员在开发过程中的具体参与与开展非正式需求评估活动相关(73%对40%,比值比2.96,95%置信区间1.18 - 7.99,P = 0.02),以及通过社区组织招募参与者相关(40%对11%,比值比3.48,95%置信区间1.23 - 9.83,P = 0.02)。在访谈中,所有开发者都强调了让潜在用户参与的重要性、价值和挑战。对其项目涉及弱势群体成员的开发者的访谈表明,非正式需求评估活动有助于使决策辅助工具以用户需求为中心,更好地避免污名化,并确保该主题对社区真正重要。与社区组织合作可能有助于建立信任关系,也可能为研究活动提供一个无威胁且便利的场所。

结论

在弱势群体成员是否专门参与的患者决策辅助工具开发过程中存在一些关键差异。其中一些做法可能需要额外的时间或资源。为了解决健康不平等问题,研究人员、社区和资助者可能需要提高对这些方法的认识并相应地进行规划。

相似文献

3
Seeking serenity: living with HIV/AIDS in rural Western Canada.
Rural Remote Health. 2007 Apr-Jun;7(2):677. Epub 2007 May 21.
7
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
8
User Involvement in the Design and Development of Patient Decision Aids and Other Personal Health Tools: A Systematic Review.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Apr;41(3):261-274. doi: 10.1177/0272989X20984134. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
9

引用本文的文献

1
A randomized controlled trial on the effects of decision aids for choosing discharge destinations of older stroke patients.
PLoS One. 2024 Jan 25;19(1):e0272115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272115. eCollection 2024.
2
Eliminating health care inequities through strengthening access to care.
Health Serv Res. 2023 Dec;58 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):300-310. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14202.
4
Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research.
J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Apr;37(Suppl 1):42-49. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07126-4. Epub 2022 Mar 29.
5
Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade.
MDM Policy Pract. 2020 Oct 20;5(2):2381468320963781. doi: 10.1177/2381468320963781. eCollection 2020 Jul-Dec.
6
Adaptation of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment Decisions with Indigenous Patients.
Patient. 2022 Mar;15(2):233-243. doi: 10.1007/s40271-021-00546-8. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
8
Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.
Med Decis Making. 2021 Oct;41(7):736-754. doi: 10.1177/0272989X211014163. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
9
Opportunities for Interventions That Address Socioeconomic Barriers to Type 2 Diabetes Management: Patient Perspectives.
Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2021 Apr;47(2):153-163. doi: 10.1177/0145721721996291. Epub 2021 Feb 28.
10
Empowered Choices: African-American Women's Breast Reconstruction Decisions.
Am J Health Behav. 2021 Mar 1;45(2):352-370. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.45.2.14.

本文引用的文献

1
Can adults with low literacy understand shared decision making questions? A qualitative investigation.
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Nov;99(11):1796-1802. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.008. Epub 2016 May 9.
3
From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Aug;25(8):626-32. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004839. Epub 2016 Mar 18.
5
A systematic review of approaches for engaging patients for research on rare diseases.
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Aug;29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S788-800. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2895-9.
7
Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 15;9(4):e94670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094670. eCollection 2014.
9
A systematic development process for patient decision aids.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S2. Epub 2013 Nov 29.
10
Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Feb 26;14:89. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-89.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验