"这是一次非常尴尬的咨询,因为我不知道"--在新西兰奥特亚罗瓦,全科医生在为性别和性少数群体青年提供医疗保健服务方面的经验和挑战。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Family practice Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmad024
Rona Carroll, Sonya J Morgan, Alex Ker, Susan M Garrett, Sally B Rose, Tracey Gardiner, Eileen M McKinlay
{"title":"\"这是一次非常尴尬的咨询,因为我不知道\"--在新西兰奥特亚罗瓦,全科医生在为性别和性少数群体青年提供医疗保健服务方面的经验和挑战。","authors":"Rona Carroll, Sonya J Morgan, Alex Ker, Susan M Garrett, Sally B Rose, Tracey Gardiner, Eileen M McKinlay","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmad024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rainbow young people (RYP; people of diverse genders, sexualities, and variations in sex characteristics) face barriers accessing primary care, often report negative experiences and the need to educate clinicians on rainbow-specific issues. This study explores general practice staff views and experiences of providing care to RYP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three focus groups were held with staff from 5 general practices in an urban area of Aotearoa New Zealand (25 participants in total). Practices were purposively selected to include some known to be more \"rainbow-friendly\" seeing larger numbers of RYP and some with no particular focus on RYP. All members of each practice were invited to participate, including administration and reception staff. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed in NVivo using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four main themes were identified: (i) Practice experience, (ii) Feeling awkward, (iii) Knowledge and training, and (iv) Structural barriers. Differences were apparent in health provider knowledge, comfort, and experience in providing care to RYP. Participants identified a lack of knowledge and training and wanted more resources and education. Systems limitations were common (e.g. with IT systems for recording gender) and often contributed to awkward clinical encounters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants recognized shortcomings in their training, knowledge, and level of confidence providing care to RYP and expressed a desire to improve their competency. Further work is needed to identify and trial practical strategies that help improve communication skills, knowledge, and the delivery of more equitable healthcare to RYP.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324325/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"It was a very awkward consultation because I didn't know\\\"-general practice staff experiences and challenges in providing healthcare to gender and sexual minority youth in Aotearoa New Zealand.\",\"authors\":\"Rona Carroll, Sonya J Morgan, Alex Ker, Susan M Garrett, Sally B Rose, Tracey Gardiner, Eileen M McKinlay\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/fampra/cmad024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rainbow young people (RYP; people of diverse genders, sexualities, and variations in sex characteristics) face barriers accessing primary care, often report negative experiences and the need to educate clinicians on rainbow-specific issues. This study explores general practice staff views and experiences of providing care to RYP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three focus groups were held with staff from 5 general practices in an urban area of Aotearoa New Zealand (25 participants in total). Practices were purposively selected to include some known to be more \\\"rainbow-friendly\\\" seeing larger numbers of RYP and some with no particular focus on RYP. All members of each practice were invited to participate, including administration and reception staff. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed in NVivo using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four main themes were identified: (i) Practice experience, (ii) Feeling awkward, (iii) Knowledge and training, and (iv) Structural barriers. Differences were apparent in health provider knowledge, comfort, and experience in providing care to RYP. Participants identified a lack of knowledge and training and wanted more resources and education. Systems limitations were common (e.g. with IT systems for recording gender) and often contributed to awkward clinical encounters.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants recognized shortcomings in their training, knowledge, and level of confidence providing care to RYP and expressed a desire to improve their competency. Further work is needed to identify and trial practical strategies that help improve communication skills, knowledge, and the delivery of more equitable healthcare to RYP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11324325/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad024","RegionNum":4,"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

背景:彩虹青年(RYP;具有不同性别、性取向和性特征差异的人)在获得初级保健服务时面临障碍,经常有负面经历,需要对临床医生进行彩虹特定问题的教育。本研究探讨了全科医生在为 RYP 提供医疗服务时的观点和经验:方法:与来自新西兰奥特亚罗瓦一个城市地区的 5 家全科诊所的员工(共 25 名参与者)举行了三次焦点小组讨论。这些诊所是有目的性地挑选出来的,包括一些众所周知的 "彩虹友好型 "诊所,这些诊所有较多的青少年患者,也包括一些并不特别关注青少年患者的诊所。每个诊所的所有成员都被邀请参加,包括行政人员和接待人员。对焦点小组进行了录音、转录,并使用归纳式主题分析法在 NVivo 中进行了分析:结果:确定了四个主要专题:(i) 实践经验,(ii) 感觉尴尬,(iii) 知识和培训,以及 (iv) 结构性障碍。医疗服务提供者在为青少年提供医疗服务时,在知识、舒适度和经验方面存在明显差异。参与者认为缺乏知识和培训,希望获得更多的资源和教育。系统方面的限制也很常见(如记录性别的信息技术系统),这往往会导致尴尬的临床接触:参与者认识到他们在培训、知识和为 RYP 提供护理的信心水平方面存在不足,并表示希望提高他们的能力。需要进一步开展工作,以确定和试用实用的策略,帮助提高沟通技巧和知识,并为遥感青少年提供更公平的医疗保健服务。
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
"It was a very awkward consultation because I didn't know"-general practice staff experiences and challenges in providing healthcare to gender and sexual minority youth in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Background: Rainbow young people (RYP; people of diverse genders, sexualities, and variations in sex characteristics) face barriers accessing primary care, often report negative experiences and the need to educate clinicians on rainbow-specific issues. This study explores general practice staff views and experiences of providing care to RYP.

Methods: Three focus groups were held with staff from 5 general practices in an urban area of Aotearoa New Zealand (25 participants in total). Practices were purposively selected to include some known to be more "rainbow-friendly" seeing larger numbers of RYP and some with no particular focus on RYP. All members of each practice were invited to participate, including administration and reception staff. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed in NVivo using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Four main themes were identified: (i) Practice experience, (ii) Feeling awkward, (iii) Knowledge and training, and (iv) Structural barriers. Differences were apparent in health provider knowledge, comfort, and experience in providing care to RYP. Participants identified a lack of knowledge and training and wanted more resources and education. Systems limitations were common (e.g. with IT systems for recording gender) and often contributed to awkward clinical encounters.

Conclusions: Participants recognized shortcomings in their training, knowledge, and level of confidence providing care to RYP and expressed a desire to improve their competency. Further work is needed to identify and trial practical strategies that help improve communication skills, knowledge, and the delivery of more equitable healthcare to RYP.

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
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Impact of implementing primary care-based medication for opioid use disorder on provider and staff perceptions. The effect and implementation of the COVID Box, a remote patient monitoring system for patients with a COVID-19 infection in primary care: a matched cohort study. Can patient education initiatives in primary care increase patient knowledge of appropriate antibiotic use and decrease expectations for unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions? Clinical effects of accreditation in general practice: a pragmatic randomized controlled study. School absence policy and healthcare use: a difference-in-difference cohort analysis.
×
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