Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Patient Educ Couns. 2023 Apr;109:107620. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107620. Epub 2023 Jan 2.
Question prompt lists (QPLs) have been effective at increasing patient involvement and question asking in medical appointments, which is critical for shared decision making. We investigated whether pre-visit preparation (PVP), including a QPL, would increase question asking among caregivers of pediatric patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions.
Caregivers were randomized to receive the PVP before their appointment (n = 59) or not (control, n = 53). Appointments were audio-recorded. Transcripts were analyzed to determine questions asked.
Caregivers in the PVP group asked more questions (Mean = 4.36, SD = 4.66 vs. Mean = 2.83, SD = 3.03, p = 0.045), including QPL questions (Mean = 1.05, SD = 1.39 vs. Mean = 0.36, SD = 0.81, p = 0.002). Caregivers whose child had insurance other than Medicaid in the PVP group asked more total and QPL questions than their counterparts in the control group (ps = 0.005 and 0.002); there was no intervention effect among caregivers of children with Medicaid or no insurance (ps = 0.775 and 0.166).
The PVP increased question asking but worked less effectively among traditionally underserved groups. Additional interventions, including provider-focused efforts, may be needed to promote engagement of underserved patients.
Patient/family-focused interventions may not be beneficial for all populations. Providers should be aware of potential implicit and explicit biases and encourage question asking to promote patient/family engagement.
问题提示清单(QPL)在增加患者在医疗预约中的参与度和提问方面非常有效,这对于共同决策至关重要。我们调查了预访准备(PVP),包括 QPL,是否会增加患有未确诊、疑似遗传疾病的儿科患者的照顾者的提问。
将照顾者随机分为在预约前接受 PVP(n=59)或不接受(对照组,n=53)。预约进行了录音。对转录本进行分析以确定提出的问题。
PVP 组的照顾者提出了更多的问题(平均值=4.36,标准差=4.66 与平均值=2.83,标准差=3.03,p=0.045),包括 QPL 问题(平均值=1.05,标准差=1.39 与平均值=0.36,标准差=0.81,p=0.002)。在 PVP 组中,其孩子有保险但不是医疗补助的照顾者比对照组的照顾者提出了更多的总问题和 QPL 问题(ps=0.005 和 0.002);医疗补助或无保险的儿童的照顾者没有干预效果(ps=0.775 和 0.166)。
PVP 增加了问题的提出,但在传统服务不足的群体中效果较差。可能需要额外的干预措施,包括以提供者为重点的努力,以促进服务不足的患者的参与。
以患者/家庭为中心的干预措施可能对所有人群都没有好处。提供者应意识到潜在的内隐和外显偏见,并鼓励提问以促进患者/家庭的参与。