评估新型临终关怀病人决策辅助工具。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-21 DOI:10.1177/10499091231190776
Channing E Tate, Gwendolyn Mami, Monica McNulty, Deborah J Rinehart, Robin Yasui, Nicole Rondinelli, Jonathan Treem, Diane Fairclough, Daniel D Matlock
{"title":"评估新型临终关怀病人决策辅助工具。","authors":"Channing E Tate, Gwendolyn Mami, Monica McNulty, Deborah J Rinehart, Robin Yasui, Nicole Rondinelli, Jonathan Treem, Diane Fairclough, Daniel D Matlock","doi":"10.1177/10499091231190776","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> We tested a novel hospice-specific patient decision aid to determine whether the decision aid could improve hospice knowledge, opinions of hospice, and decision self-efficacy in making decisions about hospice. <b>Methods:</b> Two patient-level randomized studies were conducted using two different cohorts. Recruitment was completed from March 2019 through May 2020. Cohort #1 was recruited from an academic hospital and a safety-net hospital and Cohort #2 was recruited from community members. Participants were randomized to review a hospice-specific patient decision aid. The primary outcomes were change in hospice knowledge, hospice beliefs and attitudes, and decision self-efficacy Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate differences on the primary outcomes between baseline and 1-month. <b>Participants:</b> Participants were at least 65 years of age. A total of 266 participants enrolled (131 in Cohort #1 and 135 in Cohort #2). Participants were randomized to the intervention group (n = 156) or control group (n = 109). The sample was 74% (n = 197) female, 58% (n = 156) African American and mean age was 74.9. <b>Results:</b> Improvements in hospice knowledge between baseline and 1-month were observed in both the intervention and the control groups with no differences between groups (.43 vs .275 points, <i>P</i> = .823). There were no observed differences between groups on Hospice Beliefs and Attitudes scale (3.29 vs 3.08, <i>P</i> = .076). In contrast, Decision Self-Efficacy improved in both groups and the effect of the intervention was significant (8.04 vs 2.90, <i>P</i> = -.027). <b>Conclusions:</b> The intervention demonstrated significant improvements in decision self-efficacy but not in hospice knowledge or hospice beliefs and attitudes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50810,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"414-423"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11083913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.\",\"authors\":\"Channing E Tate, Gwendolyn Mami, Monica McNulty, Deborah J Rinehart, Robin Yasui, Nicole Rondinelli, Jonathan Treem, Diane Fairclough, Daniel D Matlock\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10499091231190776\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> We tested a novel hospice-specific patient decision aid to determine whether the decision aid could improve hospice knowledge, opinions of hospice, and decision self-efficacy in making decisions about hospice. <b>Methods:</b> Two patient-level randomized studies were conducted using two different cohorts. Recruitment was completed from March 2019 through May 2020. Cohort #1 was recruited from an academic hospital and a safety-net hospital and Cohort #2 was recruited from community members. Participants were randomized to review a hospice-specific patient decision aid. The primary outcomes were change in hospice knowledge, hospice beliefs and attitudes, and decision self-efficacy Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate differences on the primary outcomes between baseline and 1-month. <b>Participants:</b> Participants were at least 65 years of age. A total of 266 participants enrolled (131 in Cohort #1 and 135 in Cohort #2). Participants were randomized to the intervention group (n = 156) or control group (n = 109). The sample was 74% (n = 197) female, 58% (n = 156) African American and mean age was 74.9. <b>Results:</b> Improvements in hospice knowledge between baseline and 1-month were observed in both the intervention and the control groups with no differences between groups (.43 vs .275 points, <i>P</i> = .823). There were no observed differences between groups on Hospice Beliefs and Attitudes scale (3.29 vs 3.08, <i>P</i> = .076). In contrast, Decision Self-Efficacy improved in both groups and the effect of the intervention was significant (8.04 vs 2.90, <i>P</i> = -.027). <b>Conclusions:</b> The intervention demonstrated significant improvements in decision self-efficacy but not in hospice knowledge or hospice beliefs and attitudes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"414-423\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11083913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231190776\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10499091231190776","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们测试了一种新颖的临终关怀患者决策辅助工具,以确定该决策辅助工具是否能提高临终关怀知识、对临终关怀的看法以及对临终关怀决策的自我效能。方法:使用两个不同的队列开展了两项患者层面的随机研究。招募工作于 2019 年 3 月至 2020 年 5 月完成。1 号队列从一家学术医院和一家安全网医院招募,2 号队列从社区成员中招募。参与者被随机分配到一个临终关怀患者决策辅助工具中。主要结果是安宁疗护知识、安宁疗护信念和态度以及决策自我效能的变化。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验来评估基线和1个月后主要结果的差异。参与者:参与者年龄至少为 65 岁。共有 266 人参加(1 号组 131 人,2 号组 135 人)。参与者被随机分配到干预组(n = 156)或对照组(n = 109)。样本中女性占 74%(n = 197),非裔美国人占 58%(n = 156),平均年龄为 74.9 岁。结果干预组和对照组的安宁疗护知识在基线和 1 个月之间都有所提高,组间无差异(.43 vs .275 分,P = .823)。安宁疗护信念和态度量表(3.29 vs 3.08,P = .076)在组间无差异。相比之下,两组患者的决策自我效能均有所提高,干预效果显著(8.04 vs 2.90,P = -.027)。结论:干预在决策自我效能方面有明显改善,但在临终关怀知识或临终关怀信念和态度方面没有。
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
Evaluation of a Novel Hospice-Specific Patient Decision Aid.

Background: We tested a novel hospice-specific patient decision aid to determine whether the decision aid could improve hospice knowledge, opinions of hospice, and decision self-efficacy in making decisions about hospice. Methods: Two patient-level randomized studies were conducted using two different cohorts. Recruitment was completed from March 2019 through May 2020. Cohort #1 was recruited from an academic hospital and a safety-net hospital and Cohort #2 was recruited from community members. Participants were randomized to review a hospice-specific patient decision aid. The primary outcomes were change in hospice knowledge, hospice beliefs and attitudes, and decision self-efficacy Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to evaluate differences on the primary outcomes between baseline and 1-month. Participants: Participants were at least 65 years of age. A total of 266 participants enrolled (131 in Cohort #1 and 135 in Cohort #2). Participants were randomized to the intervention group (n = 156) or control group (n = 109). The sample was 74% (n = 197) female, 58% (n = 156) African American and mean age was 74.9. Results: Improvements in hospice knowledge between baseline and 1-month were observed in both the intervention and the control groups with no differences between groups (.43 vs .275 points, P = .823). There were no observed differences between groups on Hospice Beliefs and Attitudes scale (3.29 vs 3.08, P = .076). In contrast, Decision Self-Efficacy improved in both groups and the effect of the intervention was significant (8.04 vs 2.90, P = -.027). Conclusions: The intervention demonstrated significant improvements in decision self-efficacy but not in hospice knowledge or hospice beliefs and attitudes.

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
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine
American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
169
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Medicine (AJHPM) is a peer-reviewed journal, published eight times a year. In 30 years of publication, AJHPM has highlighted the interdisciplinary team approach to hospice and palliative medicine as related to the care of the patient and family. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Exploring the Perceptions of Families and Nurses After Signing a Do-Not-Resuscitate Order for Patients in Respiratory Care Wards Differences in Timely Goals of Care Discussions in Nursing Homes Among Black Residents A Way Forward for Comprehensive Cancer Caregiver Support Development of a Hospice Perceptions Instrument for Diverse Patients and Families: Establishing Content and Face Validity Antibiotics at End of Life: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going? A Narrative Review
×
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