有动机戒烟的个人接受循证戒烟援助的知情决策

T. Gültzow, E. Smit, Raesita Hudales, C. Dirksen, C. Hoving
{"title":"有动机戒烟的个人接受循证戒烟援助的知情决策","authors":"T. Gültzow, E. Smit, Raesita Hudales, C. Dirksen, C. Hoving","doi":"10.47368/ejhc.2022.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evidence-based cessation assistance increases cessation rates. Activating preferences during decision making could improve effectiveness further. Decision aids (DAs) facilitate deciding by taking preferences into account. To develop effective DAs, potential end users' (i.e., individuals motivated to quit) needs and experts' viewpoints should be considered. Therefore, the aim of this needs assessment was: (1) To explore end users' needs and (2) to obtain consensus among smoking cessation counsellors and scientific experts to develop a self-administered DA to support end users in choosing cessation assistance. Data was gathered via two approaches: (1) twenty semi-structured interviews with potential end users and (2) two three-round Delphi studies with 61 counsellors and 44 scientific experts. Interview data and the first Delphi rounds were analysed qualitatively, the other Delphi rounds were analysed quantitatively. Potential end users acquired information in different ways, e.g., via own experiences. Important characteristics to decide between tools varied, however effectiveness and costs were commonly reported. Experts reached consensus on 38 and 40 statements, e.g., tools should be appropriate for users' addiction level. Although some trends emerged, due to the variation among stakeholders, a 'one size fits all'-approach is undesirable. This heterogeneity should be considered, e.g., by enabling users to customise the DA.","PeriodicalId":358828,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Communication","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Informed Decision Making on the Uptake of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Assistance by Individuals Motivated to Quit Smoking\",\"authors\":\"T. Gültzow, E. Smit, Raesita Hudales, C. Dirksen, C. Hoving\",\"doi\":\"10.47368/ejhc.2022.101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Evidence-based cessation assistance increases cessation rates. Activating preferences during decision making could improve effectiveness further. Decision aids (DAs) facilitate deciding by taking preferences into account. To develop effective DAs, potential end users' (i.e., individuals motivated to quit) needs and experts' viewpoints should be considered. Therefore, the aim of this needs assessment was: (1) To explore end users' needs and (2) to obtain consensus among smoking cessation counsellors and scientific experts to develop a self-administered DA to support end users in choosing cessation assistance. Data was gathered via two approaches: (1) twenty semi-structured interviews with potential end users and (2) two three-round Delphi studies with 61 counsellors and 44 scientific experts. Interview data and the first Delphi rounds were analysed qualitatively, the other Delphi rounds were analysed quantitatively. Potential end users acquired information in different ways, e.g., via own experiences. Important characteristics to decide between tools varied, however effectiveness and costs were commonly reported. Experts reached consensus on 38 and 40 statements, e.g., tools should be appropriate for users' addiction level. Although some trends emerged, due to the variation among stakeholders, a 'one size fits all'-approach is undesirable. This heterogeneity should be considered, e.g., by enabling users to customise the DA.\",\"PeriodicalId\":358828,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Communication\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2022.101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47368/ejhc.2022.101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于证据的戒烟援助提高了戒烟率。在决策过程中激活偏好可以进一步提高效率。决策辅助工具(DAs)通过考虑偏好来促进决策。为了开发有效的DAs,应该考虑潜在的最终用户(即被激励戒烟的个人)的需求和专家的观点。因此,这项需求评估的目的是:(1)探索最终使用者的需求;(2)在戒烟顾问和科学专家之间达成共识,制定一项自我管理的行为准则,以支持最终使用者选择戒烟援助。通过两种方法收集数据:(1)对潜在最终用户进行20次半结构化访谈;(2)对61名咨询师和44名科学专家进行两次三轮德尔菲研究。对访谈数据和第一轮德尔菲进行定性分析,对其余德尔菲进行定量分析。潜在的最终用户以不同的方式获取信息,例如通过自己的经验。选择不同工具的重要特征各不相同,但通常报告的是有效性和成本。专家们就38条和40条陈述达成了共识,例如,工具应该适合用户的成瘾程度。尽管由于利益相关者之间的差异,出现了一些趋势,但“一刀切”的方法是不可取的。应该考虑这种异质性,例如,允许用户自定义数据处理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Informed Decision Making on the Uptake of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Assistance by Individuals Motivated to Quit Smoking
Evidence-based cessation assistance increases cessation rates. Activating preferences during decision making could improve effectiveness further. Decision aids (DAs) facilitate deciding by taking preferences into account. To develop effective DAs, potential end users' (i.e., individuals motivated to quit) needs and experts' viewpoints should be considered. Therefore, the aim of this needs assessment was: (1) To explore end users' needs and (2) to obtain consensus among smoking cessation counsellors and scientific experts to develop a self-administered DA to support end users in choosing cessation assistance. Data was gathered via two approaches: (1) twenty semi-structured interviews with potential end users and (2) two three-round Delphi studies with 61 counsellors and 44 scientific experts. Interview data and the first Delphi rounds were analysed qualitatively, the other Delphi rounds were analysed quantitatively. Potential end users acquired information in different ways, e.g., via own experiences. Important characteristics to decide between tools varied, however effectiveness and costs were commonly reported. Experts reached consensus on 38 and 40 statements, e.g., tools should be appropriate for users' addiction level. Although some trends emerged, due to the variation among stakeholders, a 'one size fits all'-approach is undesirable. This heterogeneity should be considered, e.g., by enabling users to customise the DA.
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
Twitter, Politics, and the Pandemic When Online and Offline Environments Meet Examining the Impact of Six Pro-Vaccination Messages on MMR Vaccine Hesitancy Among Mothers in Ukraine Would You Mind Sharing Your Opinion About the Covid-19 Vaccination? Issue Fatigue Over the Course of the Covid-19 Pandemic
×
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