Study Protocol for a Focus Group Discussion About the Patients' Perspective on Carotid Endarterectomy.

M S Marsman, G G Koning, B P W Jansen, M M P J Reijnen, M Habibovic, P W H E Vriens
{"title":"Study Protocol for a Focus Group Discussion About the Patients' Perspective on Carotid Endarterectomy.","authors":"M S Marsman, G G Koning, B P W Jansen, M M P J Reijnen, M Habibovic, P W H E Vriens","doi":"10.1177/15385744241286585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The outcomes of carotid surgery are commonly evaluated using parameters such as mortality and stroke. The importance of these parameters is based on doctors' and scientific perspectives. Presently, patient centered health care aims to value the evaluation from patients' perspective, mostly using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). The true significance of outcomes of carotid surgery that matter most to the patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to identify and verify the patients' perspective on carotid surgery for patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methods and outcomes: </strong>An exploratory semi-structured focus group discussion will be used, as a quality research method. Three groups consisting of 8 patients (<i>n</i> = 24), who underwent the carotid endarterectomy because of a significant and symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery, will be enrolled. If data saturation is not reached, the sample size will be expanded. An expert medical psychologist will lead the focus group discussions. The interviews will be recorded, transcribed 'verbatim' and analyzed after each session. Items valuable to patients regarding their surgery and recovery will be discussed. This protocol will be published prior to the start of the Focus Group Discussion.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Patients' perspective on outcomes regarding their carotid surgery will be explored and tried to be identified. The results of the focus group discussions may fuel the ongoing global discussion on improving evidence based and patient reported outcome measures and will help the clinical physician to 'understand' their patients better. Focus group discussions may aid in the purpose of verification of PROs and PROMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":94265,"journal":{"name":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular and endovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15385744241286585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The outcomes of carotid surgery are commonly evaluated using parameters such as mortality and stroke. The importance of these parameters is based on doctors' and scientific perspectives. Presently, patient centered health care aims to value the evaluation from patients' perspective, mostly using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). The true significance of outcomes of carotid surgery that matter most to the patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study is to identify and verify the patients' perspective on carotid surgery for patients with a symptomatic and significant carotid stenosis.

Methods and outcomes: An exploratory semi-structured focus group discussion will be used, as a quality research method. Three groups consisting of 8 patients (n = 24), who underwent the carotid endarterectomy because of a significant and symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery, will be enrolled. If data saturation is not reached, the sample size will be expanded. An expert medical psychologist will lead the focus group discussions. The interviews will be recorded, transcribed 'verbatim' and analyzed after each session. Items valuable to patients regarding their surgery and recovery will be discussed. This protocol will be published prior to the start of the Focus Group Discussion.

Discussion: Patients' perspective on outcomes regarding their carotid surgery will be explored and tried to be identified. The results of the focus group discussions may fuel the ongoing global discussion on improving evidence based and patient reported outcome measures and will help the clinical physician to 'understand' their patients better. Focus group discussions may aid in the purpose of verification of PROs and PROMs.

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
关于患者对颈动脉内膜剥脱术看法的焦点小组讨论研究方案。
导言:颈动脉手术的结果通常使用死亡率和中风等参数进行评估。这些参数的重要性基于医生和科学的观点。目前,以患者为中心的医疗保健旨在从患者的角度重视评估,大多采用患者报告结果(PROs)。对患者而言最重要的颈动脉手术结果的真正意义在很大程度上是未知的。本研究旨在确定并验证患者对有症状且颈动脉明显狭窄的患者进行颈动脉手术的看法:作为一种高质量的研究方法,将采用探索性的半结构化焦点小组讨论。三个小组由 8 名患者(n = 24)组成,他们都因颈内动脉有明显症状性狭窄而接受了颈动脉内膜剥脱术。如果数据未达到饱和,将扩大样本量。一位医学心理学专家将主持焦点小组讨论。访谈将进行录音、"逐字 "转录,并在每次讨论后进行分析。将讨论对患者手术和康复有价值的项目。本方案将在焦点小组讨论开始前公布:讨论:将探讨患者对其颈动脉手术结果的看法,并尝试找出答案。焦点小组讨论的结果可能会推动正在进行的关于改进循证和患者报告结果测量的全球讨论,并将帮助临床医生更好地 "理解 "他们的患者。焦点小组讨论可能有助于验证PROs和PROMs的目的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Popliteal Vein Entrapment as a Rare Form of Popliteal Entrapment Syndrome. Challenging Conventional Treatment: Retrograde Implantation of a Covered Stent in Superior Mensenteric Artery Occlusion Case. Smaller Hospital Size is Associated With Higher Mortality in Stanford Type A Aortic Dissection. Acute Vascular Complications of VA-ECMO in COVID-19 Patients. Does COVID-19 Affect the Outcome? Gender-Specific Long-Term Results After Elective Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Depending on the Site of Distal Anastomosis.
×
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