混合模式或纯虚拟模式下的门诊集体药物使用障碍治疗与亲临现场治疗相比,患者感知到的影响。

IF 5.1 Q1 SUBSTANCE ABUSE Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/SAR.S481447
Nicholas L Bormann, Cindy J Stoppel, Stephan Arndt, Tyler S Oesterle
{"title":"混合模式或纯虚拟模式下的门诊集体药物使用障碍治疗与亲临现场治疗相比,患者感知到的影响。","authors":"Nicholas L Bormann, Cindy J Stoppel, Stephan Arndt, Tyler S Oesterle","doi":"10.2147/SAR.S481447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Telehealth use has grown tremendously since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the benefits of virtual care delivery are numerous, little is known about patient experiences in group treatment settings when members join both virtually and in person with the counselor (a hybrid model). We sought to fill this gap by comparing patient survey data across care delivery models.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Adult patients with a substance use disorder enrolled at one of seven intensive outpatient (IOP) programs in rural Minnesota voluntarily completed a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction, perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and insight gained from treatment. Starting 7/1/2021, groups were either all virtual, all in-person, or a hybrid model. The survey began on 1/1/2022. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested for differences among treatment groups. Separate models were used for each survey question, where the dependent variable was the survey response, the test of interest being treatment group-type, with covariates of length of stay and age. Model estimates and model-based standard deviations were used to calculate the Cohen's d effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey results from a total of 1037 individuals were included, one survey per respondent. Data was deidentified upon receipt of the survey, preventing specific demographic comparisons. For the hybrid groups, no significant differences were noted with survey responses relative to in-person, with negligible to small effect sizes seen. When comparing virtual to in-person, virtual was rated as significantly worse than in-person on 6 of the 8 questions; effect size estimates exceeded the small effect size cut-off, and the 95% CI exceeded the moderate cut-off.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Creating a group model where patients can attend both virtually and in-person together appears to improve perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and treatment insight, compared to virtual-only groups, which may have a negative effect relative to in-person.</p>","PeriodicalId":22060,"journal":{"name":"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation","volume":"15 ","pages":"223-232"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520710/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Perceived Impact of Outpatient Group Substance Use Disorder Treatment in a Hybrid Model or Virtual-Only Model Relative to In-Person Delivery.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas L Bormann, Cindy J Stoppel, Stephan Arndt, Tyler S Oesterle\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/SAR.S481447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Telehealth use has grown tremendously since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the benefits of virtual care delivery are numerous, little is known about patient experiences in group treatment settings when members join both virtually and in person with the counselor (a hybrid model). We sought to fill this gap by comparing patient survey data across care delivery models.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Adult patients with a substance use disorder enrolled at one of seven intensive outpatient (IOP) programs in rural Minnesota voluntarily completed a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction, perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and insight gained from treatment. Starting 7/1/2021, groups were either all virtual, all in-person, or a hybrid model. The survey began on 1/1/2022. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested for differences among treatment groups. Separate models were used for each survey question, where the dependent variable was the survey response, the test of interest being treatment group-type, with covariates of length of stay and age. Model estimates and model-based standard deviations were used to calculate the Cohen's d effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Survey results from a total of 1037 individuals were included, one survey per respondent. Data was deidentified upon receipt of the survey, preventing specific demographic comparisons. For the hybrid groups, no significant differences were noted with survey responses relative to in-person, with negligible to small effect sizes seen. When comparing virtual to in-person, virtual was rated as significantly worse than in-person on 6 of the 8 questions; effect size estimates exceeded the small effect size cut-off, and the 95% CI exceeded the moderate cut-off.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Creating a group model where patients can attend both virtually and in-person together appears to improve perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and treatment insight, compared to virtual-only groups, which may have a negative effect relative to in-person.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22060,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"223-232\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520710/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S481447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/SAR.S481447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:自 COVID-19 大流行以来,远程医疗的使用大幅增加。虽然虚拟医疗服务好处多多,但人们对患者在团体治疗环境中既通过虚拟方式又与咨询师面对面交流(混合模式)的体验却知之甚少。我们试图通过比较不同治疗模式下的患者调查数据来填补这一空白:在明尼苏达州农村地区的七个强化门诊(IOP)项目中,有药物使用障碍的成人患者自愿填写了一份调查问卷,对患者满意度、感知的治疗联盟、团体凝聚力以及从治疗中获得的启示进行了评估。从 2021 年 1 月 7 日开始,治疗小组要么全部采用虚拟模式,要么全部采用面对面模式,要么采用混合模式。调查于 2022 年 1 月 1 日开始。协方差分析(ANCOVA)检验了治疗组之间的差异。每个调查问题都使用了不同的模型,因变量为调查回答,检验指标为治疗组类型,协变量为住院时间和年龄。模型估计值和基于模型的标准偏差用于计算 Cohen's d效应大小:共纳入了 1037 人的调查结果,每位受访者一份调查问卷。收到调查表后,数据已被去标识,因此无法进行具体的人口统计学比较。在混合组中,与面对面调查相比,调查回答没有明显差异,影响大小可以忽略不计。在 8 个问题中,有 6 个问题的虚拟回答明显不如面对面回答;效应大小估计值超过了小效应大小临界值,95% CI 超过了中效应临界值:结论:创建一个患者可以同时参加虚拟和面对面治疗的小组模式,似乎可以提高治疗联盟感、小组凝聚力和治疗洞察力,而仅有虚拟小组可能会比面对面治疗产生负面影响。
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
Patient Perceived Impact of Outpatient Group Substance Use Disorder Treatment in a Hybrid Model or Virtual-Only Model Relative to In-Person Delivery.

Purpose: Telehealth use has grown tremendously since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the benefits of virtual care delivery are numerous, little is known about patient experiences in group treatment settings when members join both virtually and in person with the counselor (a hybrid model). We sought to fill this gap by comparing patient survey data across care delivery models.

Patients and methods: Adult patients with a substance use disorder enrolled at one of seven intensive outpatient (IOP) programs in rural Minnesota voluntarily completed a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction, perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and insight gained from treatment. Starting 7/1/2021, groups were either all virtual, all in-person, or a hybrid model. The survey began on 1/1/2022. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested for differences among treatment groups. Separate models were used for each survey question, where the dependent variable was the survey response, the test of interest being treatment group-type, with covariates of length of stay and age. Model estimates and model-based standard deviations were used to calculate the Cohen's d effect size.

Results: Survey results from a total of 1037 individuals were included, one survey per respondent. Data was deidentified upon receipt of the survey, preventing specific demographic comparisons. For the hybrid groups, no significant differences were noted with survey responses relative to in-person, with negligible to small effect sizes seen. When comparing virtual to in-person, virtual was rated as significantly worse than in-person on 6 of the 8 questions; effect size estimates exceeded the small effect size cut-off, and the 95% CI exceeded the moderate cut-off.

Conclusion: Creating a group model where patients can attend both virtually and in-person together appears to improve perceived therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, and treatment insight, compared to virtual-only groups, which may have a negative effect relative to in-person.

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
9
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient Perceived Impact of Outpatient Group Substance Use Disorder Treatment in a Hybrid Model or Virtual-Only Model Relative to In-Person Delivery. Enhancing Outcomes in Opioid Use Disorder Treatment: An Economic Evaluation of Improving Medication Adherence for Buprenorphine Through Blister-Packaging. A Framework for a New Paradigm of Opioid Drug Tapering Using Adjunct Drugs. Incidence, Timing and Social Correlates of the Development of Opioid Use Disorder Among Clients Seeking Treatment for an Alcohol Use Problem: Changes Over the Three Waves of the Opioid Epidemic. Community-Based Medications First for Opioid Use Disorder - Care Utilization and Mortality Outcomes.
×
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