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.
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).