Qualitative evaluation of the SHARING Choices trial of primary care advance care planning for adults with and without dementia

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19154
Sydney M. Dy MD, Daniel L. Scerpella MPH, Valecia Hanna MS, Kathryn A. Walker PharmD, Danetta H. Sloan PhD, Chase Mulholland Green MPH, Valerie Cotter PhD, Jennifer L. Wolff PhD, Erin Rand Giovannetti PhD, Maura McGuire MD, Naaz Hussain MD, Kelly M. Smith PhD, Martha Abshire Saylor PhD
{"title":"Qualitative evaluation of the SHARING Choices trial of primary care advance care planning for adults with and without dementia","authors":"Sydney M. Dy MD,&nbsp;Daniel L. Scerpella MPH,&nbsp;Valecia Hanna MS,&nbsp;Kathryn A. Walker PharmD,&nbsp;Danetta H. Sloan PhD,&nbsp;Chase Mulholland Green MPH,&nbsp;Valerie Cotter PhD,&nbsp;Jennifer L. Wolff PhD,&nbsp;Erin Rand Giovannetti PhD,&nbsp;Maura McGuire MD,&nbsp;Naaz Hussain MD,&nbsp;Kelly M. Smith PhD,&nbsp;Martha Abshire Saylor PhD","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Primary care can be an important setting for communication and advance care planning (ACP), including for those with dementia and their families. The study objective was to explore experiences with a pragmatic trial of a communication and ACP intervention, SHARING Choices, in primary care for older adults with and without dementia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method<b>s</b></h3>\n \n <p>We conducted qualitative interviews using tailored semi-structured guides with three groups: ACP facilitators who conducted the intervention; clinicians, managers, and administrators from sites randomized to the intervention; and patients and families who met with ACP facilitators. We used thematic analysis to identify and synthesize emergent themes based on key Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research concepts and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes, triangulating the three groups' perspectives.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We identified five key themes. For <i>acceptability</i>, perceptions of the intervention were mostly positive, although some components were not generally implemented. For <i>adoption</i>, respondents perceived that ACP facilitators mainly focused on conducting ACP, although facilitators often did not implement the ADRD and family engagement aspects with the ACP. For <i>relational connections</i>, ACP facilitator—practice and clinician communication and engagement were key to how the intervention was implemented. For <i>adaptability</i>, ACP facilitators and health systems adapted how the ACP facilitation component was implemented to local preferences and over time, given the pragmatic nature of the trial. And, for <i>sustainability</i>, ACP facilitators and clinicians/managers/facilitators were positive that the intervention should be continued but noted barriers to its sustainability. Patients and families generally did not recall the intervention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>ACP facilitators and clinicians, managers, and administrators had positive perceptions of the ACP facilitator component of the intervention in this pragmatic trial with adaptation to local preferences. However, engaging those with dementia and families was more challenging in the implementation of this intervention.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"72 11","pages":"3413-3426"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19154","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Primary care can be an important setting for communication and advance care planning (ACP), including for those with dementia and their families. The study objective was to explore experiences with a pragmatic trial of a communication and ACP intervention, SHARING Choices, in primary care for older adults with and without dementia.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews using tailored semi-structured guides with three groups: ACP facilitators who conducted the intervention; clinicians, managers, and administrators from sites randomized to the intervention; and patients and families who met with ACP facilitators. We used thematic analysis to identify and synthesize emergent themes based on key Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research concepts and Proctor's Implementation Outcomes, triangulating the three groups' perspectives.

Results

We identified five key themes. For acceptability, perceptions of the intervention were mostly positive, although some components were not generally implemented. For adoption, respondents perceived that ACP facilitators mainly focused on conducting ACP, although facilitators often did not implement the ADRD and family engagement aspects with the ACP. For relational connections, ACP facilitator—practice and clinician communication and engagement were key to how the intervention was implemented. For adaptability, ACP facilitators and health systems adapted how the ACP facilitation component was implemented to local preferences and over time, given the pragmatic nature of the trial. And, for sustainability, ACP facilitators and clinicians/managers/facilitators were positive that the intervention should be continued but noted barriers to its sustainability. Patients and families generally did not recall the intervention.

Conclusions

ACP facilitators and clinicians, managers, and administrators had positive perceptions of the ACP facilitator component of the intervention in this pragmatic trial with adaptation to local preferences. However, engaging those with dementia and families was more challenging in the implementation of this intervention.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对 "分享选择"(SHARING Choices)试验的定性评估。
背景:初级保健是进行沟通和预先护理计划(ACP)的重要场所,包括对痴呆症患者及其家属而言。本研究的目的是探讨在初级保健中为患有或未患有痴呆症的老年人提供沟通和预先护理计划干预--"分享选择"(SHARING Choices)--的实用性试验的经验:我们使用定制的半结构化指南对三组人进行了定性访谈:方法: 我们使用定制的半结构式指南对三组人进行了定性访谈:进行干预的 ACP 促进者;随机参与干预的临床医生、经理和管理人员;与 ACP 促进者会面的患者和家属。我们采用主题分析法,根据实施研究综合框架的关键概念和 Proctor 的实施结果,确定并归纳出新出现的主题,对三组人的观点进行三角测量:我们确定了五个关键主题。在可接受性方面,受访者对干预措施的看法大多是积极的,尽管有些内容并未得到普遍实施。在采纳性方面,受访者认为 ACP 促进者主要专注于开展 ACP,但促进者往往没有在 ACP 中实施 ADRD 和家庭参与方面的内容。在关系连接方面,ACP 促进者与临床医生的沟通和参与是干预措施实施的关键。在适应性方面,考虑到试验的实用性,ACP 促进者和医疗系统根据当地的偏好和时间调整了 ACP 促进部分的实施方式。在可持续性方面,ACP 促进者和临床医生/管理者/促进者对继续开展干预措施持肯定态度,但也指出了其可持续性的障碍。患者和家属普遍不记得干预措施:在这项根据当地偏好进行调整的实用试验中,ACP 促进者和临床医生、经理及行政人员对干预措施中的 ACP 促进者部分有积极的看法。然而,让痴呆症患者和家属参与到干预措施的实施过程中更具挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
期刊最新文献
Notices Issue Information Cover Issue Information Author Index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1