Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-21 DOI:10.1177/10499091231190776
Channing E Tate, Gwendolyn Mami, Monica McNulty, Deborah J Rinehart, Robin Yasui, Nicole Rondinelli, Jonathan Treem, Diane Fairclough, Daniel D Matlock
{"title":"Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.","authors":"Channing E Tate, Gwendolyn Mami, Monica McNulty, Deborah J Rinehart, Robin Yasui, Nicole Rondinelli, Jonathan Treem, Diane Fairclough, Daniel D Matlock","doi":"10.1177/10499091231190776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> We tested a novel hospice-specific patient decision aid to determine whether the decision aid could improve hospice knowledge, opinions of hospice, and decision self-efficacy in making decisions about hospice. <b>Methods:</b> Two patient-level randomized studies were conducted using two different cohorts. Recruitment was completed from March 2019 through May 2020. Cohort #1 was recruited from an academic hospital and a safety-net hospital and Cohort #2 was recruited from community members. Participants were randomized to review a hospice-specific patient decision aid. The primary outcomes were change in hospice knowledge, hospice beliefs and attitudes, and decision self-efficacy Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate differences on the primary outcomes between baseline and 1-month. <b>Participants:</b> Participants were at least 65 years of age. A total of 266 participants enrolled (131 in Cohort #1 and 135 in Cohort #2). Participants were randomized to the intervention group (n = 156) or control group (n = 109). The sample was 74% (n = 197) female, 58% (n = 156) African American and mean age was 74.9. <b>Results:</b> Improvements in hospice knowledge between baseline and 1-month were observed in both the intervention and the control groups with no differences between groups (.43 vs .275 points, <i>P</i> = .823). There were no observed differences between groups on Hospice Beliefs and Attitudes scale (3.29 vs 3.08, <i>P</i> = .076). In contrast, Decision Self-Efficacy improved in both groups and the effect of the intervention was significant (8.04 vs 2.90, <i>P</i> = -.027). <b>Conclusions:</b> The intervention demonstrated significant improvements in decision self-efficacy but not in hospice knowledge or hospice beliefs and attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"414-423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11083913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231190776","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We tested a novel hospice-specific patient decision aid to determine whether the decision aid could improve hospice knowledge, opinions of hospice, and decision self-efficacy in making decisions about hospice. Methods: Two patient-level randomized studies were conducted using two different cohorts. Recruitment was completed from March 2019 through May 2020. Cohort #1 was recruited from an academic hospital and a safety-net hospital and Cohort #2 was recruited from community members. Participants were randomized to review a hospice-specific patient decision aid. The primary outcomes were change in hospice knowledge, hospice beliefs and attitudes, and decision self-efficacy Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate differences on the primary outcomes between baseline and 1-month. Participants: Participants were at least 65 years of age. A total of 266 participants enrolled (131 in Cohort #1 and 135 in Cohort #2). Participants were randomized to the intervention group (n = 156) or control group (n = 109). The sample was 74% (n = 197) female, 58% (n = 156) African American and mean age was 74.9. Results: Improvements in hospice knowledge between baseline and 1-month were observed in both the intervention and the control groups with no differences between groups (.43 vs .275 points, P = .823). There were no observed differences between groups on Hospice Beliefs and Attitudes scale (3.29 vs 3.08, P = .076). In contrast, Decision Self-Efficacy improved in both groups and the effect of the intervention was significant (8.04 vs 2.90, P = -.027). Conclusions: The intervention demonstrated significant improvements in decision self-efficacy but not in hospice knowledge or hospice beliefs and attitudes.

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
评估新型临终关怀病人决策辅助工具。
背景:我们测试了一种新颖的临终关怀患者决策辅助工具,以确定该决策辅助工具是否能提高临终关怀知识、对临终关怀的看法以及对临终关怀决策的自我效能。方法:使用两个不同的队列开展了两项患者层面的随机研究。招募工作于 2019 年 3 月至 2020 年 5 月完成。1 号队列从一家学术医院和一家安全网医院招募,2 号队列从社区成员中招募。参与者被随机分配到一个临终关怀患者决策辅助工具中。主要结果是安宁疗护知识、安宁疗护信念和态度以及决策自我效能的变化。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验来评估基线和1个月后主要结果的差异。参与者:参与者年龄至少为 65 岁。共有 266 人参加(1 号组 131 人,2 号组 135 人)。参与者被随机分配到干预组(n = 156)或对照组(n = 109)。样本中女性占 74%(n = 197),非裔美国人占 58%(n = 156),平均年龄为 74.9 岁。结果干预组和对照组的安宁疗护知识在基线和 1 个月之间都有所提高,组间无差异(.43 vs .275 分,P = .823)。安宁疗护信念和态度量表(3.29 vs 3.08,P = .076)在组间无差异。相比之下,两组患者的决策自我效能均有所提高,干预效果显著(8.04 vs 2.90,P = -.027)。结论:干预在决策自我效能方面有明显改善,但在临终关怀知识或临终关怀信念和态度方面没有。
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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Pain Outcomes Among Medical Centers With High vs Low Specialist Palliative Care Reach Among People With Heart Failure. Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity
×
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