Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial.

Journal of CME Pub Date : 2024-11-03 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475
Dalil Asmaou Bouba, Lucas Gomes Souza, Suélène Georgina Dofara, Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, Souleymane Gadio, Diogo Mochcovitch, Jean-Sébastien Paquette, Shigeko Seiko Izumi, Patrick Archambault, Annette M Totten, Louis-Paul Rivest, France Légaré
{"title":"Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial.","authors":"Dalil Asmaou Bouba, Lucas Gomes Souza, Suélène Georgina Dofara, Sabrina Guay-Bélanger, Souleymane Gadio, Diogo Mochcovitch, Jean-Sébastien Paquette, Shigeko Seiko Izumi, Patrick Archambault, Annette M Totten, Louis-Paul Rivest, France Légaré","doi":"10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to measure the sustainability of health professionals' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) after individual-focused training versus team-based training. In a cluster randomised trial, we trained healthcare professionals in 40 primary care clinics and measured their intention to hold serious illness conversations immediately (T1), after 1 year (T2) and after 2 years (T3). Primary care clinics (<i>n</i> = 40) were randomly assigned to individual-focused training (comparator) or team-based training (intervention). Average age of the 373 participants was 35-44 years, 79% were women. On a scale of 1 to 7, at T1, the mean intention was 5.33 (SD 0.20) in the individual-focused group and 5.36 (SD 0.18) in the team-based group; at T2, these scores were 4.94 (SD 0.23) and 4.87 (SD 0.21) and at T3, 5.14 (SD 0.24) and 4.59 (SD 0.21), respectively. At T3, the difference in mean intention between study groups had a significant p-value of 0.01. Intention to have serious illness conversations was lower at T2 and T3 after team-based training than after individual-focused training, with a significant difference at 2 years in favour of individual-focused training. Health professionals reported not enough time during consultations for serious illness conversations as a major barrier.</p><p><strong>Registration number: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03577002) for the parent clinical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":73675,"journal":{"name":"Journal of CME","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11536683/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of CME","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/28338073.2024.2420475","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We aimed to measure the sustainability of health professionals' intention to have serious illness conversations with patients using the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) after individual-focused training versus team-based training. In a cluster randomised trial, we trained healthcare professionals in 40 primary care clinics and measured their intention to hold serious illness conversations immediately (T1), after 1 year (T2) and after 2 years (T3). Primary care clinics (n = 40) were randomly assigned to individual-focused training (comparator) or team-based training (intervention). Average age of the 373 participants was 35-44 years, 79% were women. On a scale of 1 to 7, at T1, the mean intention was 5.33 (SD 0.20) in the individual-focused group and 5.36 (SD 0.18) in the team-based group; at T2, these scores were 4.94 (SD 0.23) and 4.87 (SD 0.21) and at T3, 5.14 (SD 0.24) and 4.59 (SD 0.21), respectively. At T3, the difference in mean intention between study groups had a significant p-value of 0.01. Intention to have serious illness conversations was lower at T2 and T3 after team-based training than after individual-focused training, with a significant difference at 2 years in favour of individual-focused training. Health professionals reported not enough time during consultations for serious illness conversations as a major barrier.

Registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT03577002) for the parent clinical trial.

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
以个人为重点的培训和以团队为基础的培训对卫生专业人员进行重病谈话的意愿的长期影响:分组随机试验》。
我们的目的是测量医护人员在接受以个人为中心的培训和以团队为基础的培训后,使用《重病对话指南》(SICG)与患者进行重病对话的意愿的可持续性。在一项分组随机试验中,我们对 40 家初级保健诊所的医护人员进行了培训,并测量了他们立即(T1)、1 年后(T2)和 2 年后(T3)进行重病谈话的意愿。初级保健诊所(n = 40)被随机分配到以个人为重点的培训(比较者)或以团队为基础的培训(干预者)。373 名参与者的平均年龄为 35-44 岁,79% 为女性。在 1 到 7 的评分中,T1 阶段,以个人为中心组的平均意向为 5.33(标准差为 0.20),以团队为基础组的平均意向为 5.36(标准差为 0.18);T2 阶段,这两个分数分别为 4.94(标准差为 0.23)和 4.87(标准差为 0.21);T3 阶段,这两个分数分别为 5.14(标准差为 0.24)和 4.59(标准差为 0.21)。在 T3 阶段,研究组之间的平均意向差异显著,P 值为 0.01。在 T2 和 T3 阶段,接受团队培训后的重病谈话意向低于接受以个人为中心的培训后的意向,而在 2 年后,接受以个人为中心的培训后的意向与接受以团队为中心的培训后的意向有显著差异。医护人员表示,在会诊期间没有足够的时间进行重病谈话是一个主要障碍:注册号:ClinicalTrials.gov(ID NCT03577002)为母临床试验的注册号。
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
How Clinician-Scientists Access and Mobilise Social Capital and Thus Contribute to the Professional Development of Their Colleagues in Their Networks. Long-Term Effects of Individual-Focused and Team-Based Training on Health Professionals' Intention to Have Serious Illness Conversations: A Cluster Randomised Trial. A Systematic Investigation of Assessment Scores, Self-Efficacy, and Clinical Practice: Are They Related? Evolving Maintenance of Certification in Canada: A Collaborative Journey. Finding the Invisible Patient to Address Substance Use, Violence, and Depression in Women Living with HIV.
×
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