Patients with antiphospholipid antibodies preferentially seek health information from physicians: a cross-sectional online patient quantitative survey.
Alexandra O Kobza, Francesca S Cardwell, Susan J Elliott, Paul S Gibson, Nancy Soliman, Leslie Skeith, Ann E Clarke, Megan R W Barber
{"title":"Patients with antiphospholipid antibodies preferentially seek health information from physicians: a cross-sectional online patient quantitative survey.","authors":"Alexandra O Kobza, Francesca S Cardwell, Susan J Elliott, Paul S Gibson, Nancy Soliman, Leslie Skeith, Ann E Clarke, Megan R W Barber","doi":"10.1007/s00296-024-05777-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Little is known about how patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) access and trust health information. This research aimed to: describe the sources of information most frequently accessed/trusted by patients with APS/aPL; identify if individuals with APS/aPL perceived their health had been negatively impacted by various sources and document obstacles to accessing health information. Patients meeting Revised Sapporo Criteria for APS or with ≥1 positive aPL on ≥2 occasions were recruited to an online survey regarding their health information use at diagnosis and within 6 months preceding survey completion. McNemar tests were used to compare percentages accessing and trusting each source at diagnosis/currently. 69 patients completed the survey; 88.4% were female, mean age was 47.4 years (SD 15.1). The sources most frequently accessed at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists, hematologists, and family physicians, yet patients accessed family physicians (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI - 29.2%, -2.7%) and hematologists (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI -31.1%, -0.8%) less frequently from diagnosis to currently. The most trusted sources at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists (82.6% vs. 92.8%) and family physicians (66.7% vs. 68.1%). Few respondents reported negative impacts from advocacy organizations (4.4%), websites (5.8%) and social media (4.4%). 20.3% reported challenges communicating with healthcare providers. Patients with aPL/APS preferentially seek health information from and trust their physicians. However, 20.3% of patients felt communication with healthcare providers was an obstacle to accessing information. There is a need for enhanced patient-physician communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":21322,"journal":{"name":"Rheumatology International","volume":"45 2","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rheumatology International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-024-05777-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Little is known about how patients with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) or antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) access and trust health information. This research aimed to: describe the sources of information most frequently accessed/trusted by patients with APS/aPL; identify if individuals with APS/aPL perceived their health had been negatively impacted by various sources and document obstacles to accessing health information. Patients meeting Revised Sapporo Criteria for APS or with ≥1 positive aPL on ≥2 occasions were recruited to an online survey regarding their health information use at diagnosis and within 6 months preceding survey completion. McNemar tests were used to compare percentages accessing and trusting each source at diagnosis/currently. 69 patients completed the survey; 88.4% were female, mean age was 47.4 years (SD 15.1). The sources most frequently accessed at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists, hematologists, and family physicians, yet patients accessed family physicians (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI - 29.2%, -2.7%) and hematologists (47.8% vs. 31.9%, difference -15.9%, 95% CI -31.1%, -0.8%) less frequently from diagnosis to currently. The most trusted sources at diagnosis and currently were rheumatologists/lupus specialists (82.6% vs. 92.8%) and family physicians (66.7% vs. 68.1%). Few respondents reported negative impacts from advocacy organizations (4.4%), websites (5.8%) and social media (4.4%). 20.3% reported challenges communicating with healthcare providers. Patients with aPL/APS preferentially seek health information from and trust their physicians. However, 20.3% of patients felt communication with healthcare providers was an obstacle to accessing information. There is a need for enhanced patient-physician communication.
关于抗磷脂综合征(APS)或抗磷脂抗体(aPL)患者如何获取和信任健康信息,我们知之甚少。本研究旨在:描述APS/aPL患者最常访问/信任的信息来源;确定APS/aPL患者是否认为自己的健康受到各种来源的负面影响,并记录获取健康信息方面的障碍。符合APS修订札幌标准或≥1例aPL阳性≥2次的患者被招募参加在线调查,调查内容涉及他们在诊断时和调查完成前6个月内的健康信息使用情况。McNemar测试用于比较在诊断/当前访问和信任每个来源的百分比。69例患者完成调查;88.4%为女性,平均年龄47.4岁(SD 15.1)。诊断时和目前最常访问的来源是风湿病学家/狼疮专家、血液学家和家庭医生,但从诊断到目前,患者访问家庭医生(47.8%对31.9%,差异-15.9%,95% CI - 29.2%, -2.7%)和血液学家(47.8%对31.9%,差异-15.9%,95% CI -31.1%, -0.8%)的频率较低。目前最可信的诊断来源是风湿病学家/狼疮专家(82.6%对92.8%)和家庭医生(66.7%对68.1%)。很少有受访者表示来自倡导组织(4.4%)、网站(5.8%)和社交媒体(4.4%)的负面影响。20.3%的人表示与医疗保健提供者沟通存在困难。aPL/APS患者优先向医生寻求健康信息并信任他们的医生。然而,20.3%的患者认为与医疗保健提供者的沟通是获取信息的障碍。有必要加强医患沟通。
期刊介绍:
RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL is an independent journal reflecting world-wide progress in the research, diagnosis and treatment of the various rheumatic diseases. It is designed to serve researchers and clinicians in the field of rheumatology.
RHEUMATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL will cover all modern trends in clinical research as well as in the management of rheumatic diseases. Special emphasis will be given to public health issues related to rheumatic diseases, applying rheumatology research to clinical practice, epidemiology of rheumatic diseases, diagnostic tests for rheumatic diseases, patient reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatology and evidence on education of rheumatology. Contributions to these topics will appear in the form of original publications, short communications, editorials, and reviews. "Letters to the editor" will be welcome as an enhancement to discussion. Basic science research, including in vitro or animal studies, is discouraged to submit, as we will only review studies on humans with an epidemological or clinical perspective. Case reports without a proper review of the literatura (Case-based Reviews) will not be published. Every effort will be made to ensure speed of publication while maintaining a high standard of contents and production.
Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been reviewed by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted.