Suppr超能文献

焦点小组讨论作为评估基于患者的结果的工具,为医学生进行焦点小组讨论的实用技巧——以一个例子进行学习

Focus Group Discussion as a Tool to Assess Patient-Based Outcomes, Practical Tips for Conducting Focus Group Discussion for Medical Students-Learning With an Example.

作者信息

Zacharia Balaji, Pai Puneeth Katapadi, Paul Manu

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.

Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India.

出版信息

J Patient Exp. 2021 Jul 26;8:23743735211034276. doi: 10.1177/23743735211034276. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Patient-based outcomes (patient-reported outcomes) of any intervention can change according to factors like age, gender, region, culture, education, and socioeconomic status. Most of the available outcome measuring tools have a surgeon-related bias. Focus group discussion (FGD) is a simple and effective way to assess the outcome of an intervention. In FGD, people from similar backgrounds and experiences discuss a specific topic of interest. Our objective is to discuss the problems of common outcome measuring tools for patient satisfaction and to understand the method of conducting an FGD. We have set our own published article on patient-based outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as an example for explaining the method of conducting an FGD. The planning, advantages, disadvantages, practicalities, and problems of conducting an FGD are explained. In conclusion, many of the tools used for assessing patient satisfaction is surgeon-centered. Focus group discussion is simple, cost-effective, requiring a small number of participants, and can be completed in a short period. It is an effective tool for assessing patient-based outcomes in TKA.

摘要

任何干预措施基于患者的结果(患者报告的结果)会因年龄、性别、地区、文化、教育和社会经济地位等因素而有所变化。大多数现有的结果测量工具都存在与外科医生相关的偏差。焦点小组讨论(FGD)是评估干预措施结果的一种简单有效的方法。在焦点小组讨论中,背景和经历相似的人会讨论一个感兴趣的特定话题。我们的目的是讨论用于患者满意度的常见结果测量工具存在的问题,并了解进行焦点小组讨论的方法。我们以自己发表的关于全膝关节置换术(TKA)后基于患者的结果的文章为例,解释进行焦点小组讨论的方法。文中解释了进行焦点小组讨论的规划、优点、缺点、实用性和问题。总之,许多用于评估患者满意度的工具是以外科医生为中心的。焦点小组讨论简单、成本效益高,所需参与者数量少,且能在短时间内完成。它是评估TKA中基于患者的结果的有效工具。

相似文献

2
Patients' experiences and satisfaction at one year following primary total knee arthroplasty: A focus-group discussion.
Musculoskeletal Care. 2020 Dec;18(4):434-449. doi: 10.1002/msc.1478. Epub 2020 May 27.
5
The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):52-64. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1919.
10
Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty : similar outcomes for trainees and trainers.
Bone Jt Open. 2022 Jan;3(1):29-34. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.31.BJO-2021-0186.R1.

本文引用的文献

1
Satisfaction after total knee replacement for osteoarthritis is usually high, but what are we measuring? A systematic review.
Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2020 Feb 5;2(1):100032. doi: 10.1016/j.ocarto.2020.100032. eCollection 2020 Mar.
2
Patients' experiences and satisfaction at one year following primary total knee arthroplasty: A focus-group discussion.
Musculoskeletal Care. 2020 Dec;18(4):434-449. doi: 10.1002/msc.1478. Epub 2020 May 27.
3
What Influences Saturation? Estimating Sample Sizes in Focus Group Research.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Aug;29(10):1483-1496. doi: 10.1177/1049732318821692. Epub 2019 Jan 10.
4
Public Reporting of Surgical Outcomes: Surgeons, Hospitals, or Both?
JAMA. 2017 Oct 17;318(15):1429-1430. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.13815.
6
Should surgical outcomes be published?
J R Soc Med. 2015 Apr;108(4):127-35. doi: 10.1177/0141076815578652.
7
The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Sep 20;14:107. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-107.
8
Patient satisfaction survey as a tool towards quality improvement.
Oman Med J. 2014 Jan;29(1):3-7. doi: 10.5001/omj.2014.02.
9
Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Feb;22(2):184-9. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001. Epub 2013 Nov 18.
10
Comparison of patient and surgeon expectations of total hip arthroplasty.
PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30195. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030195. Epub 2012 Jan 17.

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