Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, Bristol, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 14;9(6):e026588. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026588.
To explore whether a preconsultation web-based intervention enables patients with diabetes to articulate their agenda in a consultation in the hospital outpatient clinic with their diabetologist.
A qualitative study embedded in a pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial.
Two city outpatient departments in England.
25 patients attending a follow-up consultation and 6 diabetologists.
The PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist.
25 participants had their consultation with their diabetologist audio-recorded: 12 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm; 12 of the latter also had their PACE-D intervention session and a consultation recorded. Semi-structured interviews with 6 diabetologists, and 12 patients (6 in the intervention group and 6 in the control group).
Thematic discourse analysis undertaken with patient representatives trained in qualitative data analysis techniques.
We identified four consultation types: diabetologist facilitated; patient identified; consultant facilitated and patient initiated and patient ignored. We also identified three critical aspects that explained the production and utilisation of the agenda form: existing consultative style; orientation to the use of the intervention and impact on the consultation. Where patients and diabetologists have a shared preference for a consultant-led or patient-led consultation, the intervention augments effective communication and shared decision making. However, where preferences diverge (eg, there is a mismatch in patients' and diabetologists' preferences and orientations), the intervention does not improve the potential for shared decision making.
A simple web-based intervention facilitates the articulation of patients' unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologist, but only when pre-existing consultation styles and orientations already favour shared decision making. More needs to be done to translate patient empowerment in the consultation setting into genuine self-efficacy.
ISRCTN75070242.
探讨预咨询网络干预是否使糖尿病患者能够在与他们的糖尿病医生的医院门诊咨询中表达他们的议程。
一项嵌入实用随机对照试验的定性研究。
英格兰的两个城市门诊部门。
25 名参加随访咨询的患者和 6 名糖尿病医生。
PACE-D,一种适用于糖尿病患者在咨询前使用的网络工具,用于生成与他们的糖尿病医生讨论的议程主题。
25 名参与者的咨询与他们的糖尿病医生进行了录音:对照组 12 名,干预组 13 名;后者中有 12 名也记录了他们的 PACE-D 干预会议和咨询。对 6 名糖尿病医生和 12 名患者(干预组 6 名,对照组 6 名)进行了半结构化访谈。
采用经过定性数据分析技术培训的患者代表进行主题话语分析。
我们确定了四种咨询类型:糖尿病医生主导型;患者识别型;顾问主导型和患者发起型以及患者忽视型。我们还确定了三个关键方面,解释了议程表的制作和使用:现有的咨询风格;对干预措施的使用倾向和对咨询的影响。当患者和糖尿病医生对顾问主导或患者主导的咨询有共同的偏好时,该干预措施增强了有效的沟通和共同决策。然而,当偏好存在分歧时(例如,患者和糖尿病医生的偏好和倾向存在不匹配),该干预措施并不能提高共同决策的可能性。
一个简单的网络干预可以促进患者与他们的糖尿病医生咨询中未表达议程的表达,但前提是预先存在的咨询风格和倾向已经有利于共同决策。需要做更多的工作来将咨询环境中的患者赋权转化为真正的自我效能。
ISRCTN75070242。