The Sixth Annual Conference and Awards Ceremony of the European Society for Person Centered Healthcare (ESPCH6), dynamically co-created by the ESPCH and WPP Health Practice, was delivered earlier this year at the University of West London on 27 & 28 February 2020 [1]. The purpose of ESPCH6 was to debate how the reintroduction of the historic tenets of humanistic medicine/healthcare could take place within a data-driven modern context, with a laser-sharp focus on the pragmatic imperative of higher quality care at sustainable or lowered cost. The conference brought together a wide range of distinguished clinical and academic speakers, chairpersons, and key opinion leaders from across the globe, including the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and, in the UK, colleagues from the University of Oxford, University of West London, Manchester Metropolitan University, Kingston University, St. George’s University of London, the University of Hull, and the University of Gloucester UK. Over ESPCH6’s two intensive days, 33 detailed presentations were delivered across 11 academic sessions, spanning a wide range of study areas of immediate relevance to the development and implementation of person-centred approaches within health and social care systems [1]. Notably, and as a direct function of ESPCH’s partnership with WPP Health Practice, a key characteristic of ESPCH6 was the inclusion, as speakers, of a wide range of expert patients and patient advocacy organisations, alongside a range of senior colleagues as speakers from the pharmaceutical and healthcare technology industries. In this Guest Editorial, we report and discuss the results of our recent interviews with senior members of the pharmaceutical industry, principally those who presented at ESPCH6, but also others. We demonstrate how pharmaceutical companies are stepping up to the personcentered care (PCC) agenda, and how their individual and collective approaches are adding value and momentum to the global PCC movement.
{"title":"Person-Centred Healthcare versus Patient Centricity - what is the difference and how are pharmaceutical companies aiming to secure internal representation of the patient voice?","authors":"Ankita Batla, J. Soon, R. Morton","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1897","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1897","url":null,"abstract":"The Sixth Annual Conference and Awards Ceremony of the European Society for Person Centered Healthcare (ESPCH6), dynamically co-created by the ESPCH and WPP Health Practice, was delivered earlier this year at the University of West London on 27 & 28 February 2020 [1]. The purpose of ESPCH6 was to debate how the reintroduction of the historic tenets of humanistic medicine/healthcare could take place within a data-driven modern context, with a laser-sharp focus on the pragmatic imperative of higher quality care at sustainable or lowered cost. The conference brought together a wide range of distinguished clinical and academic speakers, chairpersons, and key opinion leaders from across the globe, including the USA, Canada, Australia, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and, in the UK, colleagues from the University of Oxford, University of West London, Manchester Metropolitan University, Kingston University, St. George’s University of London, the University of Hull, and the University of Gloucester UK. Over ESPCH6’s two intensive days, 33 detailed presentations were delivered across 11 academic sessions, spanning a wide range of study areas of immediate relevance to the development and implementation of person-centred approaches within health and social care systems [1]. Notably, and as a direct function of ESPCH’s partnership with WPP Health Practice, a key characteristic of ESPCH6 was the inclusion, as speakers, of a wide range of expert patients and patient advocacy organisations, alongside a range of senior colleagues as speakers from the pharmaceutical and healthcare technology industries. In this Guest Editorial, we report and discuss the results of our recent interviews with senior members of the pharmaceutical industry, principally those who presented at ESPCH6, but also others. We demonstrate how pharmaceutical companies are stepping up to the personcentered care (PCC) agenda, and how their individual and collective approaches are adding value and momentum to the global PCC movement.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"47 1","pages":"277-281"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74242656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Advocates of the Person-Centered Healthcare (PCH) approach say that PCH is a response to a failure of caring for patients as persons. Nevertheless, there are many human subjects falling to fulfill the requirements of a traditional philosophical definition of personhood. Hence, if we take, PCH seriously, a greater clarification of the key terminology of PCH is urgently needed. It seems necessary, for instance, that the concept of the person should be extended in order to include those individuals with insipient or immature levels of consciousness, as well as those who are severely and permanently mentally handicapped. In this article, we will depart from some well-known philosophical concepts of what it means to be a person and try to offer a broader and more inclusive meaning. We suggest that persons are human beings with a socially recognized biography, which implies to recognize as persons individuals with necessities, but also with narratives about their interests and claims, expressed sometimes by other people related to them. This is particularly the case of individuals that suffer from severe disorders of consciousness. For those, is not only care that matters; respect matters too. Caregivers should therefore not only sympathetically care for the well-being of these people; they should also be concerned to respect their interests and claims by interpreting them empathetically, in the light of their biographical story. Our conclusion is that, in order to be coherent, PCH must consider individuals with severe disorders of consciousness as persons and we think that our revised concept of personhood fits with this requirement.
{"title":"Personhood and Disorders of Consciousness: Finding Room in Person-Centered Healthcare","authors":"Bianca Andrade, M. Azevedo","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1868","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1868","url":null,"abstract":"Advocates of the Person-Centered Healthcare (PCH) approach say that PCH is a response to a failure of caring for patients as persons. Nevertheless, there are many human subjects falling to fulfill the requirements of a traditional philosophical definition of personhood. Hence, if we take, PCH seriously, a greater clarification of the key terminology of PCH is urgently needed. It seems necessary, for instance, that the concept of the person should be extended in order to include those individuals with insipient or immature levels of consciousness, as well as those who are severely and permanently mentally handicapped. In this article, we will depart from some well-known philosophical concepts of what it means to be a person and try to offer a broader and more inclusive meaning. We suggest that persons are human beings with a socially recognized biography, which implies to recognize as persons individuals with necessities, but also with narratives about their interests and claims, expressed sometimes by other people related to them. This is particularly the case of individuals that suffer from severe disorders of consciousness. For those, is not only care that matters; respect matters too. Caregivers should therefore not only sympathetically care for the well-being of these people; they should also be concerned to respect their interests and claims by interpreting them empathetically, in the light of their biographical story. Our conclusion is that, in order to be coherent, PCH must consider individuals with severe disorders of consciousness as persons and we think that our revised concept of personhood fits with this requirement.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"15 1","pages":"391-405"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83627595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Antunes, I. Augusto, P. Parada, C. Okoli, A. Appiah, P. D. L. Rios
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization’s definition of health focuses on health-related quality of life in all domains, not just the “absence of disease or infirmity”. We investigated various treatment challenges among People living with HIV (PLHIV) in Portugal. METHODS: We analyzed data for n=60 adult PLHIV with a confirmed diagnosis and on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) who participated in the 2019 Positive Perspectives Survey. Descriptive analyses were performed using R Version 3.6.1. RESULTS: Most participants were virally suppressed (97%), male (67%); <50 years (51%); and had ≥1 non-HIV comorbidity (70%). Overall, 15% reported trouble swallowing pills, 35% experienced ART side effects, 22% felt daily oral ART limited their life, 25% were stressed by their dosing schedule, 33% said daily oral dosing cued bad memories, while 63% said daily dosing reminded them of their HIV. These challenges were associated with treatment-avoidance behaviors; PLHIV reported missing ≥1 ART dose within the past month because of food requirements 27%, side effects 12%, concerns about long-term ART impacts 10%, and problems swallowing 5%. Overall, 73% were open to taking long-acting, nondaily ART if they remained virologically controlled. Only 35% overall perceived no communication barriers with their HCPs; these individuals had higher prevalence of optimal physical (86% vs. 49%, p=0.011) and mental health (86% vs. 36%, p<0.001) than those with a perceived barrier. CONCLUSION: For some PLHIV, taking pills daily was linked with diverse emotional challenges, including pill fatigue and anxiety. Clinicians should consider patient preferences when prescribing ART and engage PLHIV in treatment decisions.
背景:世界卫生组织对健康的定义侧重于所有领域与健康有关的生活质量，而不仅仅是“没有疾病或虚弱”。我们调查了葡萄牙艾滋病毒感染者(PLHIV)的各种治疗挑战。方法:我们分析了参加2019年积极观点调查的n=60名确诊并接受抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)的成年PLHIV患者的数据。描述性分析使用R Version 3.6.1进行。结果:大多数参与者病毒被抑制(97%)，男性(67%);<50岁(51%);非hiv合并症≥1例(70%)。总体而言，15%的人报告吞咽药丸有困难，35%的人经历过抗逆转录病毒治疗的副作用，22%的人认为每天口服抗逆转录病毒治疗限制了他们的生活，25%的人对他们的给药计划感到压力，33%的人说每天口服给药会导致糟糕的记忆，63%的人说每天给药会让他们想起自己的艾滋病毒。这些挑战与治疗回避行为有关;PLHIV报告在过去一个月内由于食物需求27%，副作用12%，担心长期抗逆转录病毒治疗影响10%，吞咽问题5%，缺少≥1次抗逆转录病毒治疗剂量。总体而言，如果病毒学得到控制，73%的人愿意服用长效非每日抗逆转录病毒药物。总体而言，只有35%的人认为与他们的医护人员没有沟通障碍;这些个体的最佳身体健康患病率(86%对49%，p=0.011)和心理健康患病率(86%对36%，p<0.001)高于有感知障碍的个体。结论:对于一些PLHIV患者，每天服药与多种情绪挑战有关，包括服药疲劳和焦虑。临床医生在开抗逆转录病毒治疗处方时应考虑患者的偏好，并将hiv纳入治疗决策。
{"title":"Treatment Challenges, Priorities, and Relationship with Healthcare Providers in HIV Care: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Portuguese Adults Living with HIV","authors":"A. Antunes, I. Augusto, P. Parada, C. Okoli, A. Appiah, P. D. L. Rios","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1873","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization’s definition of health focuses on health-related quality of life in all domains, not just the “absence of disease or infirmity”. We investigated various treatment challenges among People living with HIV (PLHIV) in Portugal. METHODS: We analyzed data for n=60 adult PLHIV with a confirmed diagnosis and on anti-retroviral therapy (ART) who participated in the 2019 Positive Perspectives Survey. Descriptive analyses were performed using R Version 3.6.1. RESULTS: Most participants were virally suppressed (97%), male (67%); <50 years (51%); and had ≥1 non-HIV comorbidity (70%). Overall, 15% reported trouble swallowing pills, 35% experienced ART side effects, 22% felt daily oral ART limited their life, 25% were stressed by their dosing schedule, 33% said daily oral dosing cued bad memories, while 63% said daily dosing reminded them of their HIV. These challenges were associated with treatment-avoidance behaviors; PLHIV reported missing ≥1 ART dose within the past month because of food requirements 27%, side effects 12%, concerns about long-term ART impacts 10%, and problems swallowing 5%. Overall, 73% were open to taking long-acting, nondaily ART if they remained virologically controlled. Only 35% overall perceived no communication barriers with their HCPs; these individuals had higher prevalence of optimal physical (86% vs. 49%, p=0.011) and mental health (86% vs. 36%, p<0.001) than those with a perceived barrier. CONCLUSION: For some PLHIV, taking pills daily was linked with diverse emotional challenges, including pill fatigue and anxiety. Clinicians should consider patient preferences when prescribing ART and engage PLHIV in treatment decisions.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"10 1","pages":"282-293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78280170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Phronesis has been a popular concept among those attempting to categorize and understand the kind of reasoning that doctor’s employ in the clinic. However, this paper argues that it is not the best possible concept for understanding the kind of reasoning necessary for person-centred care. First, it attends to what is lacking in that concept, and then it proposes an alternative (the concept of effectual reasoning) to demonstrate the potential for a better understanding of clinical reasoning as both open-ended and strategic. That approach is better than phronesis because it allows us to address both relational aspects of autonomy, and the need to center all persons, as such, including healthcare practitioners as well as patients, in healthcare.
{"title":"Moving past phronesis: clinical reasoning in person-centered care","authors":"S. Copeland","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1860","url":null,"abstract":"Phronesis has been a popular concept among those attempting to categorize and understand the kind of reasoning that doctor’s employ in the clinic. However, this paper argues that it is not the best possible concept for understanding the kind of reasoning necessary for person-centred care. First, it attends to what is lacking in that concept, and then it proposes an alternative (the concept of effectual reasoning) to demonstrate the potential for a better understanding of clinical reasoning as both open-ended and strategic. That approach is better than phronesis because it allows us to address both relational aspects of autonomy, and the need to center all persons, as such, including healthcare practitioners as well as patients, in healthcare.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"23 1","pages":"315-322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75205639","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Evidence-based practice in psychology is the prevailing regulatory principle for psychotherapy practice. This paper criticises the notion of facts and values in evidence-based practice in psychology and related concepts. More particularly, it aims at showing that values-based practice follows a modern scheme contrasting facts and values sharply. Person-centred medicine is suggested as a more viable option. Person-centred medicine follows a non-modern scheme in which facts and values are integrated. This move, it is argued, will lead to a more humanistic conception of the patient and psychotherapy.
{"title":"A non-modern vision: facts and values in psychotherapy","authors":"Henrik Berg","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1867","url":null,"abstract":"Evidence-based practice in psychology is the prevailing regulatory principle for psychotherapy practice. This paper criticises the notion of facts and values in evidence-based practice in psychology and related concepts. More particularly, it aims at showing that values-based practice follows a modern scheme contrasting facts and values sharply. Person-centred medicine is suggested as a more viable option. Person-centred medicine follows a non-modern scheme in which facts and values are integrated. This move, it is argued, will lead to a more humanistic conception of the patient and psychotherapy.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"291 1","pages":"385-390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77772929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"there is nothing wrong with you","authors":"J. Pheby","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1887","url":null,"abstract":"No abstract","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"64 1","pages":"410-412"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79318020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Medical Commentary on Pheby, J. (2020). there cannot be treatment without judgement EJPCH 8 (3) 415-417","authors":"D. Pheby","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1890","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1890","url":null,"abstract":"No abstract","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"18 1","pages":"418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79617942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Medical Commentary on Pheby, J. (2020). lifestyle and degeneracy EJPCH 8 (3) 424-426","authors":"D. Pheby","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1894","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1894","url":null,"abstract":"No abstract","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"1 1","pages":"427-428"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82920213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Person-centered healthcare requires providers to appreciate the knowledge and perspectives of patients. Effective and appropriate care depends on such knowledge. Medical institutions can only function well when they acknowledge patients’ own experiences. Yet a range of evidence shows that professionals and organisations often ignore patients’ own knowledge about their condition and treatment. This article aims to explain why this epistemic injustice occurs and persists. (Epistemic: to do with knowledge. Justice, because professionals and organisations do wrong when they bypass or deny patients’ own knowledge.) The explanation focuses on problems of power and accountability. Illness is a disempowering experience, partly for bodily and psychological reasons, partly because the ill person depends on others for help, partly because professionals and organisations are specially empowered in order that they may help. Occupying a lesser power position, patients often walk a tightrope between conflicting demands and may be caught in double binds: situations where every possibility for action risks bad outcomes. By contrast, professionals need not notice their greater power position and how this opens up paths of least resistance, whereby it is easy to ignore or belittle patients’ knowledge. When it is hard for patients to voice their “complaints” (the details of their illness, their sense of being badly treated), accountability falters. Healthcare providers may see themselves as expert and responsible, even as they fail many persons they are meant to help.
{"title":"Explaining epistemic injustice in medicine: tightrope walking, double binds, paths of least resistance and the invisibility of power positions to those who occupy them","authors":"Garrath Williams","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1861","url":null,"abstract":"Person-centered healthcare requires providers to appreciate the knowledge and perspectives of patients. Effective and appropriate care depends on such knowledge. Medical institutions can only function well when they acknowledge patients’ own experiences. Yet a range of evidence shows that professionals and organisations often ignore patients’ own knowledge about their condition and treatment. This article aims to explain why this epistemic injustice occurs and persists. (Epistemic: to do with knowledge. Justice, because professionals and organisations do wrong when they bypass or deny patients’ own knowledge.) The explanation focuses on problems of power and accountability. Illness is a disempowering experience, partly for bodily and psychological reasons, partly because the ill person depends on others for help, partly because professionals and organisations are specially empowered in order that they may help. Occupying a lesser power position, patients often walk a tightrope between conflicting demands and may be caught in double binds: situations where every possibility for action risks bad outcomes. By contrast, professionals need not notice their greater power position and how this opens up paths of least resistance, whereby it is easy to ignore or belittle patients’ knowledge. When it is hard for patients to voice their “complaints” (the details of their illness, their sense of being badly treated), accountability falters. Healthcare providers may see themselves as expert and responsible, even as they fail many persons they are meant to help.","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"5 1","pages":"323-335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84823572","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"lifestyle and degeneracy","authors":"J. Pheby","doi":"10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1893","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5750/ejpch.v8i3.1893","url":null,"abstract":"No abstract","PeriodicalId":72966,"journal":{"name":"European journal for person centered healthcare","volume":"20 1","pages":"424-426"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75313268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：