Joensen Lene Eide, Schultz Astrid Andrea, Madsen Kristoffer Panduro, Persson Frederik, Nørgaard Kirsten, Kristensen Peter Lommer, Pedersen Jens, Willaing Ingrid
Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Diabet Med. 2022 Aug;39(8):e14881. doi: 10.1111/dme.14881. Epub 2022 May 22.
To explore (1) experiences among people with type 1 diabetes and diabetologists of using a questionnaire-based dialogue tool in routine consultations to identify and address psychosocial challenges and (2) experiences of person-centredness in this group compared with a group who did not use the tool.
In all, 42 people with type 1 diabetes (mean age 54 years, mean diabetes duration 31 years and 60% women) were interviewed and completed an evaluation questionnaire following a routine consultation with the use of a dialogue tool including PAID-5, WHO-5 and open-ended questions. A comparison group of 42 people with type 1 diabetes attending routine consultations without the use of dialogue tools completed evaluation questionnaires. All consultations were audio recorded. Diabetologists were interviewed after completing all test consultations. Interviews were analysed using thematic text condensation. Evaluation questionnaires were analysed using descriptive statistics, chi square tests and Student's two-sided t-tests.
Most participants found questions in the dialogue tool relevant to discuss with the diabetologist, and two-thirds were satisfied with the time spent on that. Experiences of people with type 1 diabetes and diabetologists were related to three pathways: (1) the tool supported valuable conversations with the diabetologist, (2) conversations with the diabetologist were unchanged and (3) the tool derailed conversations. All participants reported high levels of person centredness; however, significantly more in the comparison group reported that the diabetologist made them feel at ease (80 vs. 55%) and discussed and planned specific changes with them (93 vs. 67%).
A questionnaire-based dialogue tool in consultations can support the discussion of psychosocial issues of people with type 1 diabetes. However, flexible and tailored use of the dialogue tool is crucial as consultations may otherwise be derailed.
探讨(1)1型糖尿病患者和糖尿病专家在常规会诊中使用基于问卷的对话工具来识别和应对心理社会挑战的体验,以及(2)与未使用该工具的群体相比,该群体中以患者为中心的体验。
共有42名1型糖尿病患者(平均年龄54岁,平均糖尿病病程31年,60%为女性)在使用包括PAID-5、WHO-5和开放式问题的对话工具进行常规会诊后接受了访谈并完成了一份评估问卷。42名未使用对话工具进行常规会诊的1型糖尿病患者组成的对照组完成了评估问卷。所有会诊均进行了录音。在完成所有测试会诊后,对糖尿病专家进行了访谈。访谈采用主题文本浓缩法进行分析。评估问卷采用描述性统计、卡方检验和学生双侧t检验进行分析。
大多数参与者认为对话工具中的问题与和糖尿病专家讨论相关,并且三分之二的人对在这方面花费的时间感到满意。1型糖尿病患者和糖尿病专家的体验与三条途径相关:(1)该工具支持了与糖尿病专家的有价值的对话,(2)与糖尿病专家的对话没有变化,(3)该工具使对话偏离了方向。所有参与者都报告了高度的以患者为中心;然而,对照组中显著更多的人报告说糖尿病专家让他们感到轻松(80%对55%),并与他们讨论并计划了具体的改变(93%对67%)。
会诊中基于问卷的对话工具可以支持对1型糖尿病患者心理社会问题的讨论。然而,灵活且有针对性地使用对话工具至关重要,否则会诊可能会偏离方向。