采用混合方法对加强预先护理规划的干预措施进行比较。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2023.230187R2
Caroline K Tietbohl, Carly Ritger, Sarah Jordan, Prajakta Shanbhag, Rebecca L Sudore, Hillary D Lum
{"title":"采用混合方法对加强预先护理规划的干预措施进行比较。","authors":"Caroline K Tietbohl, Carly Ritger, Sarah Jordan, Prajakta Shanbhag, Rebecca L Sudore, Hillary D Lum","doi":"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230187R2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although interventions can increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement, it remains unclear which interventions to choose in primary care settings. This study compares a passive intervention (mailed materials) to an interactive intervention (group visits) on participant ACP engagement and experiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used mixed methods to examine ACP engagement at baseline and six months following two ACP interventions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive mailed materials or participate in two ACP group visits. We administered the 4-item ACP Engagement survey (n = 110) and conducted interviews (n = 23). We compared mean scores and percent change in ACP engagement, analyzed interviews with directed content analysis to understand participants' ACP experiences, and integrated the findings based on mailed materials or group visits intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants demonstrated increased ACP engagement scores. At six months, group visit participants reported higher percent change in mean overall score compared with mailed materials participants (+8% vs +3%, <i>P < .0001</i>). Group visits participants reported that being prompted to think about end-of-life preferences, gaining knowledge about ACP, and understanding the value of completing ACP documentation influenced their ACP readiness. While both interventions encouraged patients to start considering and refining their end-of-life preferences, group visits made patients feel more knowledgeable about ACP, highlighted the importance of completing ACP documentation early, and sparked further ACP discussions with others.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While primary care patients may benefit from mailed ACP materials, patients reported increased readiness after ACP group visits. Group visits emphasized the value of upstream preparation, ongoing conversations, and increased knowledge about ACP.</p>","PeriodicalId":50018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","volume":"37 2","pages":"215-227"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Interventions to Increase Advance Care Planning.\",\"authors\":\"Caroline K Tietbohl, Carly Ritger, Sarah Jordan, Prajakta Shanbhag, Rebecca L Sudore, Hillary D Lum\",\"doi\":\"10.3122/jabfm.2023.230187R2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Although interventions can increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement, it remains unclear which interventions to choose in primary care settings. This study compares a passive intervention (mailed materials) to an interactive intervention (group visits) on participant ACP engagement and experiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used mixed methods to examine ACP engagement at baseline and six months following two ACP interventions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive mailed materials or participate in two ACP group visits. We administered the 4-item ACP Engagement survey (n = 110) and conducted interviews (n = 23). We compared mean scores and percent change in ACP engagement, analyzed interviews with directed content analysis to understand participants' ACP experiences, and integrated the findings based on mailed materials or group visits intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants demonstrated increased ACP engagement scores. At six months, group visit participants reported higher percent change in mean overall score compared with mailed materials participants (+8% vs +3%, <i>P < .0001</i>). Group visits participants reported that being prompted to think about end-of-life preferences, gaining knowledge about ACP, and understanding the value of completing ACP documentation influenced their ACP readiness. While both interventions encouraged patients to start considering and refining their end-of-life preferences, group visits made patients feel more knowledgeable about ACP, highlighted the importance of completing ACP documentation early, and sparked further ACP discussions with others.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While primary care patients may benefit from mailed ACP materials, patients reported increased readiness after ACP group visits. Group visits emphasized the value of upstream preparation, ongoing conversations, and increased knowledge about ACP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"volume\":\"37 2\",\"pages\":\"215-227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11262783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230187R2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230187R2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:虽然干预措施可以提高预先护理计划(ACP)的参与度,但在初级医疗机构中选择何种干预措施仍不明确。本研究比较了被动干预(邮寄材料)和互动干预(小组访问)对参与者参与 ACP 和体验的影响:方法:我们采用混合方法研究了两种 ACP 干预措施在基线和六个月后的 ACP 参与情况。符合条件的患者被随机分配接受邮寄材料或参加两次 ACP 小组访问。我们进行了 4 项 ACP 参与度调查(n = 110)并进行了访谈(n = 23)。我们比较了 ACP 参与度的平均得分和百分比变化,通过定向内容分析法对访谈进行了分析,以了解参与者的 ACP 体验,并根据邮寄材料或小组访问干预情况对调查结果进行了整合:所有参与者的 ACP 参与度得分都有所提高。与邮寄材料的参与者相比(+8% vs +3%,P),小组访问的参与者在 6 个月后报告的平均总分变化百分比更高。小组探访参与者表示,促使他们思考生命末期偏好、获得有关 ACP 的知识以及了解填写 ACP 文件的价值影响了他们的 ACP 准备程度。虽然两种干预措施都能鼓励患者开始考虑并完善他们的临终偏好,但小组探访使患者对 ACP 有了更多的了解,强调了尽早完成 ACP 文件的重要性,并引发了他们与他人进一步讨论 ACP:虽然初级保健患者可能会从邮寄的 ACP 资料中获益,但患者表示在 ACP 小组探访后,他们的准备程度有所提高。小组探访强调了上游准备、持续对话和增加 ACP 知识的价值。
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
A Mixed-Methods Comparison of Interventions to Increase Advance Care Planning.

Purpose: Although interventions can increase advance care planning (ACP) engagement, it remains unclear which interventions to choose in primary care settings. This study compares a passive intervention (mailed materials) to an interactive intervention (group visits) on participant ACP engagement and experiences.

Methods: We used mixed methods to examine ACP engagement at baseline and six months following two ACP interventions. Eligible patients were randomized to receive mailed materials or participate in two ACP group visits. We administered the 4-item ACP Engagement survey (n = 110) and conducted interviews (n = 23). We compared mean scores and percent change in ACP engagement, analyzed interviews with directed content analysis to understand participants' ACP experiences, and integrated the findings based on mailed materials or group visits intervention.

Results: All participants demonstrated increased ACP engagement scores. At six months, group visit participants reported higher percent change in mean overall score compared with mailed materials participants (+8% vs +3%, P < .0001). Group visits participants reported that being prompted to think about end-of-life preferences, gaining knowledge about ACP, and understanding the value of completing ACP documentation influenced their ACP readiness. While both interventions encouraged patients to start considering and refining their end-of-life preferences, group visits made patients feel more knowledgeable about ACP, highlighted the importance of completing ACP documentation early, and sparked further ACP discussions with others.

Conclusions: While primary care patients may benefit from mailed ACP materials, patients reported increased readiness after ACP group visits. Group visits emphasized the value of upstream preparation, ongoing conversations, and increased knowledge about ACP.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
6.90%
发文量
168
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1988, the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine ( JABFM ) is the official peer-reviewed journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). Believing that the public and scientific communities are best served by open access to information, JABFM makes its articles available free of charge and without registration at www.jabfm.org. JABFM is indexed by Medline, Index Medicus, and other services.
期刊最新文献
Answering the "100 Most Important Family Medicine Research Questions" from the 1985 Hames Consortium. CERA: A Vehicle for Facilitating Research in Family Medicine. Current and Future Challenges to Publishing Family Medicine Research. Diversity in Family Medicine Research. Leveraging the All of Us Database for Primary Care Research with Large Datasets.
×
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