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":3.2000,"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.
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.