澳大利亚初级保健中与患者讨论体重问题:混合方法实验研究》。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of General Internal Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-22 DOI:10.1007/s11606-024-09202-x
Madeline L West, Joanne A Rathbone, Maria Bilal, Anne Nileshni Fernando, Gemma Sharp
{"title":"澳大利亚初级保健中与患者讨论体重问题:混合方法实验研究》。","authors":"Madeline L West, Joanne A Rathbone, Maria Bilal, Anne Nileshni Fernando, Gemma Sharp","doi":"10.1007/s11606-024-09202-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Weight bias is characterised by negative attitudes towards people with a higher weight and is widespread in healthcare. Primary care professionals sometimes avoid discussing weight with patients due to concerns about upsetting them, insufficient training, resources, or referral pathways. There is, however, a responsibility for primary care professionals to address the health needs of patients, which may require discussing weight.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study aimed to understand primary care professionals and trainee perceptions of the appropriateness of weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant approaches for discussing weight with higher weight individuals when patients were and were not seeking weight management advice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed methods design.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Primary care professionals and trainees (N = 112) within Australia.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>Participants first completed an online survey and provided demographic data and completed measures of implicit and explicit weight bias. Secondly, participants viewed simulated patient consultations, reflecting each of the three approaches (weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant) in a weight-related and non-weight related context. Participants then evaluated the appropriateness of the language and strategies used.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>The participants showed, on average, low to moderate levels of explicit weight bias but high levels of implicit weight bias. For the consultations, language and strategies of the holistic approach were considered the most appropriate in both contexts. In the weight-related consultation, language used in the weight-centric and avoidant approaches were deemed equally inappropriate. However, weight-centric strategies were considered more appropriate than avoidant strategies. In the non-weight related consultation, the language and strategies of the avoidant approach were considered more appropriate than those of the weight-centric approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary care professionals and trainees favoured the holistic approach to discussing weight when patients presented with weight-related or non-weight related concerns. These findings have potential practical implications for health professional education.</p>","PeriodicalId":15860,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study.\",\"authors\":\"Madeline L West, Joanne A Rathbone, Maria Bilal, Anne Nileshni Fernando, Gemma Sharp\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11606-024-09202-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Weight bias is characterised by negative attitudes towards people with a higher weight and is widespread in healthcare. Primary care professionals sometimes avoid discussing weight with patients due to concerns about upsetting them, insufficient training, resources, or referral pathways. There is, however, a responsibility for primary care professionals to address the health needs of patients, which may require discussing weight.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current study aimed to understand primary care professionals and trainee perceptions of the appropriateness of weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant approaches for discussing weight with higher weight individuals when patients were and were not seeking weight management advice.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed methods design.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Primary care professionals and trainees (N = 112) within Australia.</p><p><strong>Approach: </strong>Participants first completed an online survey and provided demographic data and completed measures of implicit and explicit weight bias. Secondly, participants viewed simulated patient consultations, reflecting each of the three approaches (weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant) in a weight-related and non-weight related context. Participants then evaluated the appropriateness of the language and strategies used.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>The participants showed, on average, low to moderate levels of explicit weight bias but high levels of implicit weight bias. For the consultations, language and strategies of the holistic approach were considered the most appropriate in both contexts. In the weight-related consultation, language used in the weight-centric and avoidant approaches were deemed equally inappropriate. However, weight-centric strategies were considered more appropriate than avoidant strategies. In the non-weight related consultation, the language and strategies of the avoidant approach were considered more appropriate than those of the weight-centric approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary care professionals and trainees favoured the holistic approach to discussing weight when patients presented with weight-related or non-weight related concerns. These findings have potential practical implications for health professional education.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of General Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09202-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09202-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:体重偏见的特点是对体重较重的人持负面态度,在医疗保健领域非常普遍。初级保健专业人员有时会避免与患者讨论体重问题,因为他们担心会惹恼患者,也担心培训、资源或转诊途径不足。然而,初级保健专业人员有责任满足患者的健康需求,这可能需要讨论体重问题:本研究旨在了解初级保健专业人员和受训人员对以体重为中心、体重包容性/整体性和回避性方法的看法,以了解在患者寻求或不寻求体重管理建议时,与体重较高者讨论体重问题是否合适:设计:混合方法设计:设计:混合方法设计。参与者:澳大利亚的初级保健专业人员和受训人员(N = 112):方法:参与者首先完成一项在线调查,提供人口统计学数据,并完成对隐性和显性体重偏见的测量。其次,参与者观看模拟病人咨询,在与体重有关和无关的情况下分别反映三种方法(以体重为中心、体重包容/整体性和回避)。然后,参与者对所用语言和策略的适当性进行评估:主要结果:参与者平均表现出低到中等程度的显性体重偏见,但隐性体重偏见程度较高。就咨询而言,在两种情况下,整体方法的语言和策略都被认为是最合适的。在与体重有关的咨询中,以体重为中心的方法和回避方法所使用的语言同样被认为是不恰当的。然而,以体重为中心的策略被认为比回避策略更合适。在与体重无关的咨询中,回避型方法的语言和策略被认为比以体重为中心的方法更合适:结论:当患者提出与体重相关或无关的问题时,初级保健专业人员和受训人员更倾向于采用整体方法来讨论体重问题。这些发现对健康专业教育具有潜在的实际意义。
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
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study.

Background: Weight bias is characterised by negative attitudes towards people with a higher weight and is widespread in healthcare. Primary care professionals sometimes avoid discussing weight with patients due to concerns about upsetting them, insufficient training, resources, or referral pathways. There is, however, a responsibility for primary care professionals to address the health needs of patients, which may require discussing weight.

Objective: The current study aimed to understand primary care professionals and trainee perceptions of the appropriateness of weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant approaches for discussing weight with higher weight individuals when patients were and were not seeking weight management advice.

Design: Mixed methods design.

Participants: Primary care professionals and trainees (N = 112) within Australia.

Approach: Participants first completed an online survey and provided demographic data and completed measures of implicit and explicit weight bias. Secondly, participants viewed simulated patient consultations, reflecting each of the three approaches (weight-centric, weight-inclusive/holistic, and avoidant) in a weight-related and non-weight related context. Participants then evaluated the appropriateness of the language and strategies used.

Key results: The participants showed, on average, low to moderate levels of explicit weight bias but high levels of implicit weight bias. For the consultations, language and strategies of the holistic approach were considered the most appropriate in both contexts. In the weight-related consultation, language used in the weight-centric and avoidant approaches were deemed equally inappropriate. However, weight-centric strategies were considered more appropriate than avoidant strategies. In the non-weight related consultation, the language and strategies of the avoidant approach were considered more appropriate than those of the weight-centric approach.

Conclusions: Primary care professionals and trainees favoured the holistic approach to discussing weight when patients presented with weight-related or non-weight related concerns. These findings have potential practical implications for health professional education.

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
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Journal of General Internal Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
749
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Internal Medicine is the official journal of the Society of General Internal Medicine. It promotes improved patient care, research, and education in primary care, general internal medicine, and hospital medicine. Its articles focus on topics such as clinical medicine, epidemiology, prevention, health care delivery, curriculum development, and numerous other non-traditional themes, in addition to classic clinical research on problems in internal medicine.
期刊最新文献
Discussing Weight with Patients in Primary Care in Australia: A Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Association of Observation Stays with Clinical Outcomes and Costs in Medicare: An Instrumental Variable Analysis. The Master Adaptive Clinician Educator: A Framework for Future Educational Leaders in Academic Medicine. Empagliflozin in Diuretic-Refractory Ascites (DRAin-Em): Results of a Single-Center Feasibility Study. Effectiveness of a Novel Global Telemedicine Curriculum for Medical Students.
×
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