印度心血管疾病护理循证策略优先级的德尔菲研究。

Kavita Singh, Awantika Joshi, Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy, Rahul Rahul, Mark D Huffman, Nikhil Tandon, Dorairaj Prabhakaran
{"title":"印度心血管疾病护理循证策略优先级的德尔菲研究。","authors":"Kavita Singh,&nbsp;Awantika Joshi,&nbsp;Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy,&nbsp;Rahul Rahul,&nbsp;Mark D Huffman,&nbsp;Nikhil Tandon,&nbsp;Dorairaj Prabhakaran","doi":"10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Providing quality cardiovascular disease (CVD) care in low resource setting requires understanding of priority and effective interventions. This study aimed to identify and prioritize evidence-based quality improvement strategies for CVD care in India using a modified two-round Delphi process in which, we asked 46 experts (clinicians, researchers, program implementers and policy makers) to rate 25 proven CVD care strategies grouped into: (1) patient support, (2) information communication technology (ICT) for health, (3) group problem solving, (4) training, and (5) multicomponent strategy on a scale of 1 (highest/best)-5 (lowest/worst) on priority, relative advantage, and feasibility. Subsequently, we convened an expert consensus panel of 32 members to deliberate and achieve consensus regarding the prioritized set of strategies for CVD care. The Delphi study found that group problem solving strategies achieved the best score for priority (1.80) but fared poorly on feasibility (2.88). Compared to others, multicomponent strategies were rated favorably across all domains (priority = 1.84, relative advantage = 1.94, and feasibility = 2.40). The ICT for health strategies achieved the worst scores for priority = 2.01, relative advantage = 2.31, and feasibility = 2.85. Training and patient support strategies scored moderately across all domains. The expert panel narrowed the selection of a multicomponent strategy consisting of (1) electronic health records with clinical decision-support system, (2) non-physician health worker facilitated care, (3) patient education materials, (4) text-message based reminders for healthy lifestyle, and (5) audit and feedback report for providers. Future research will evaluate the real-world feasibility and effectiveness of the multicomponent strategy in patients with CVD in a low- and middle-income country setting.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2.</p>","PeriodicalId":73165,"journal":{"name":"Global implementation research and applications","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10240122/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Delphi Study to Prioritize Evidence-Based Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Care in India.\",\"authors\":\"Kavita Singh,&nbsp;Awantika Joshi,&nbsp;Nikhil Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy,&nbsp;Rahul Rahul,&nbsp;Mark D Huffman,&nbsp;Nikhil Tandon,&nbsp;Dorairaj Prabhakaran\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Providing quality cardiovascular disease (CVD) care in low resource setting requires understanding of priority and effective interventions. This study aimed to identify and prioritize evidence-based quality improvement strategies for CVD care in India using a modified two-round Delphi process in which, we asked 46 experts (clinicians, researchers, program implementers and policy makers) to rate 25 proven CVD care strategies grouped into: (1) patient support, (2) information communication technology (ICT) for health, (3) group problem solving, (4) training, and (5) multicomponent strategy on a scale of 1 (highest/best)-5 (lowest/worst) on priority, relative advantage, and feasibility. Subsequently, we convened an expert consensus panel of 32 members to deliberate and achieve consensus regarding the prioritized set of strategies for CVD care. The Delphi study found that group problem solving strategies achieved the best score for priority (1.80) but fared poorly on feasibility (2.88). Compared to others, multicomponent strategies were rated favorably across all domains (priority = 1.84, relative advantage = 1.94, and feasibility = 2.40). The ICT for health strategies achieved the worst scores for priority = 2.01, relative advantage = 2.31, and feasibility = 2.85. Training and patient support strategies scored moderately across all domains. The expert panel narrowed the selection of a multicomponent strategy consisting of (1) electronic health records with clinical decision-support system, (2) non-physician health worker facilitated care, (3) patient education materials, (4) text-message based reminders for healthy lifestyle, and (5) audit and feedback report for providers. Future research will evaluate the real-world feasibility and effectiveness of the multicomponent strategy in patients with CVD in a low- and middle-income country setting.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global implementation research and applications\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10240122/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global implementation research and applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global implementation research and applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在资源匮乏的环境中提供高质量的心血管疾病(CVD)护理需要了解优先事项和有效的干预措施。本研究旨在使用改进的两轮德尔菲过程,确定并优先考虑印度心血管疾病护理的循证质量改进策略。在该过程中,我们请46名专家(临床医生、研究人员、项目实施者和政策制定者)对25种经验证的心血管疾病护理策略进行评分,这些策略分为:(1)患者支持,(3)群体问题解决,(4)训练,以及(5)在优先级、相对优势和可行性方面,以1(最高/最好)-5(最低/最差)为尺度的多成分策略。随后,我们召集了一个由32名成员组成的专家共识小组,就CVD护理的优先策略进行审议并达成共识。德尔菲研究发现,群体问题解决策略在优先级方面得分最高(1.80),但在可行性方面表现不佳(2.88)。与其他策略相比,多组分策略在所有领域都获得了良好的评价(优先级 = 1.84,相对优势 = 1.94,以及可行性 = 2.40)。信息和通信技术促进健康战略在优先事项方面得分最差 = 2.01,相对优势 = 2.31,以及可行性 = 2.85.培训和患者支持策略在所有领域中得分适中。专家小组缩小了多成分策略的选择范围,该策略包括:(1)具有临床决策支持系统的电子健康记录,(2)非医生卫生工作者协助的护理,(3)患者教育材料,(4)基于短信的健康生活方式提醒,以及(5)提供者的审计和反馈报告。未来的研究将评估低收入和中等收入国家心血管疾病患者多组分策略的现实可行性和有效性。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,可访问10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A Delphi Study to Prioritize Evidence-Based Strategies for Cardiovascular Disease Care in India.

Providing quality cardiovascular disease (CVD) care in low resource setting requires understanding of priority and effective interventions. This study aimed to identify and prioritize evidence-based quality improvement strategies for CVD care in India using a modified two-round Delphi process in which, we asked 46 experts (clinicians, researchers, program implementers and policy makers) to rate 25 proven CVD care strategies grouped into: (1) patient support, (2) information communication technology (ICT) for health, (3) group problem solving, (4) training, and (5) multicomponent strategy on a scale of 1 (highest/best)-5 (lowest/worst) on priority, relative advantage, and feasibility. Subsequently, we convened an expert consensus panel of 32 members to deliberate and achieve consensus regarding the prioritized set of strategies for CVD care. The Delphi study found that group problem solving strategies achieved the best score for priority (1.80) but fared poorly on feasibility (2.88). Compared to others, multicomponent strategies were rated favorably across all domains (priority = 1.84, relative advantage = 1.94, and feasibility = 2.40). The ICT for health strategies achieved the worst scores for priority = 2.01, relative advantage = 2.31, and feasibility = 2.85. Training and patient support strategies scored moderately across all domains. The expert panel narrowed the selection of a multicomponent strategy consisting of (1) electronic health records with clinical decision-support system, (2) non-physician health worker facilitated care, (3) patient education materials, (4) text-message based reminders for healthy lifestyle, and (5) audit and feedback report for providers. Future research will evaluate the real-world feasibility and effectiveness of the multicomponent strategy in patients with CVD in a low- and middle-income country setting.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-023-00087-2.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Conceptualisation of the SHIFT–SHARE: A New Strategic Healthcare Implementation Framework for Task Shifting, Sharing and Resource Enhancement Identifying and Prioritizing Factors to Improve Implementation of an Evidence-Based Program for Child Maltreatment Prevention in Rural Missouri Communities Implementation Determinants of Problem-Solving Therapy Delivered by Near-Peer Lay Counselors for Youth Living with HIV in Botswana: Lay Counsellor Perspectives Exploring Behaviour Change of Healthcare Professionals while Implementing a Complex Nursing Intervention: A Survey Study Usability Testing of a Web Tool for Dissemination and Implementation Science Models
×
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