A Virtual Community of Practice to Improve Primary Health Care Professionals’ Attitudes Toward Patient Empowerment (e-MPODERA): A Cluster Randomized Trial

C. Orrego, L. Perestelo-Pérez, A. González-González, Marta Ballester-Santiago, D. Koatz, V. Pacheco-Huergo, A. Rivero-Santana, Vanesa Ramos-García, Nuria Mora Fernández, Alezandra Torres-Castaño, C. Bermejo-Caja
{"title":"A Virtual Community of Practice to Improve Primary Health Care Professionals’ Attitudes Toward Patient Empowerment (e-MPODERA): A Cluster Randomized Trial","authors":"C. Orrego, L. Perestelo-Pérez, A. González-González, Marta Ballester-Santiago, D. Koatz, V. Pacheco-Huergo, A. Rivero-Santana, Vanesa Ramos-García, Nuria Mora Fernández, Alezandra Torres-Castaño, C. Bermejo-Caja","doi":"10.1370/afm.2799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice (vCoP) in improving primary health care professionals’ (HCPs’) attitudes toward empowering patients with chronic disease. METHODS We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial. Practices were units of randomization, and primary HCPs and patients were units of analysis. Sixty-three practices in Madrid, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands were randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. Randominzation of practices was performed after HCP and patient recruitment. The patients and statistician were anonymized to group allocation; it was not possible to anonymize HCPs. The intervention was a 12-month multicomponent tailored vCoP built on the Web 2.0 concept and focused on skills toward patient empowerment. The primary outcome was Patient-Provider Orientation Scale (PPOS) score at baseline and at 12 months. The secondary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score. RESULTS A total of 321 HCPs and 1,921 patients were assessed. The intervention had a positive effect on PPOS total score (0.14 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25; P = .011) and the PPOS Sharing subscale (0.3 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.15-0.44; P < .001). No effect was found for the PPOS Caring subscale, and no significant differences were found for PAM scores. CONCLUSIONS A vCoP led to a minor increase in the PPOS Sharing component and the total score but not in the Caring component. However, considerable uncertainty remains, given the observed attrition and other limitations of the study. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of the vCoP model and on how to improve HCP engagement. VISUAL ABSTRACT","PeriodicalId":22305,"journal":{"name":"The Annals of Family Medicine","volume":"37 1","pages":"204 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PURPOSE We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice (vCoP) in improving primary health care professionals’ (HCPs’) attitudes toward empowering patients with chronic disease. METHODS We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial. Practices were units of randomization, and primary HCPs and patients were units of analysis. Sixty-three practices in Madrid, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands were randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. Randominzation of practices was performed after HCP and patient recruitment. The patients and statistician were anonymized to group allocation; it was not possible to anonymize HCPs. The intervention was a 12-month multicomponent tailored vCoP built on the Web 2.0 concept and focused on skills toward patient empowerment. The primary outcome was Patient-Provider Orientation Scale (PPOS) score at baseline and at 12 months. The secondary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score. RESULTS A total of 321 HCPs and 1,921 patients were assessed. The intervention had a positive effect on PPOS total score (0.14 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25; P = .011) and the PPOS Sharing subscale (0.3 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.15-0.44; P < .001). No effect was found for the PPOS Caring subscale, and no significant differences were found for PAM scores. CONCLUSIONS A vCoP led to a minor increase in the PPOS Sharing component and the total score but not in the Caring component. However, considerable uncertainty remains, given the observed attrition and other limitations of the study. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of the vCoP model and on how to improve HCP engagement. VISUAL ABSTRACT
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
改善初级卫生保健专业人员对患者授权态度的虚拟实践社区(e-MPODERA):一项集群随机试验
目的:我们旨在评估虚拟实践社区(vCoP)在改善初级卫生保健专业人员(HCPs)对慢性病患者赋权的态度方面的有效性。方法采用整群随机对照试验。实践是随机化的单位,初级HCPs和患者是分析的单位。马德里、加泰罗尼亚和加那利群岛的63家诊所被随机分配到干预组或对照组。在HCP和患者招募后进行实践随机化。患者和统计人员匿名分组分配;不可能匿名化医护人员。该干预是一个为期12个月的多组件定制vCoP,基于Web 2.0概念,重点关注患者赋权的技能。主要结果是基线和12个月时患者-提供者取向量表(PPOS)评分。次要终点是患者激活测量(PAM)评分。结果共评估了321名HCPs和1921名患者。干预对PPOS总分有积极影响(vCoP组提高0.14分;95% ci, 0.03-0.25;P = 0.011)和PPOS共享子量表(vCoP组高0.3分;95% ci, 0.15-0.44;P < 0.001)。在PPOS关怀分量表中没有发现影响,在PAM评分中也没有发现显著差异。结论:vCoP对PPOS共享成分和总分有轻微的提高,但对关怀成分没有影响。然而,考虑到观察到的磨损和研究的其他局限性,仍然存在相当大的不确定性。vCoP模型的有效性以及如何提高HCP的参与度需要进一步的研究。视觉文摘
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
The Disproportionate Impact of Primary Care Disruption and Telehealth Utilization During COVID-19 Optimization of Electronic Health Record Usability Continuity of Care as a Quality Metric Evaluation of Community Health Worker Intervention in San Antonio Discordance Between Clinician and Patient EHR Experiences
×
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