Dataset Information

Patients' and clinicians' expectations on integrative medicine Services for Diabetes: a focus group study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Difference of perspective between patients and physicians over integrative medicine (IM) research and service provision remains unclear despite significant use worldwide. We observed an exceptionally low utilisation of IM and potential underreporting in diabetes. We aimed to explore the barriers and recommendations regarding service delivery and research of IM service among diabetes patients and physicians.

Methods

A 10-group, 50-participant semi-structured focus group interview series was conducted. Twenty-one patients with diverse severity of disease, comorbidities and education levels; and 29 physicians (14 conventional medicine (ConM) and 15 Chinese medicine (CM)) with diverse clinical experience, academic background and affiliation were purposively sampled from private and public clinics. Their perspectives were qualitatively analysed by constant comparative method.

Results

Seven subthemes regarding barriers towards IM service were identified including finance, service access, advice from medical professionals, uncertainty of service quality, uncertainty of CM effect, difficulty in understanding CM epistemology and access to medical records. Patients underreported the use of CM due to the concern over neutrality of medical advice among physicians. Inconvenience of service access, frequent follow-up, use of decoction and long-term financial burden were identified as key obstacles among patients. Regarding research design, ConM physicians emphasised standardisation and reproducibility while CM physicians emphasised personalisation. Some CM-related outcome measurements were suggested as non-communicable. Both physicians acknowledged the discordance in epistemology should be addressed by pragmatic approach.

Conclusion

Key obstacles of CAM clinical utilisation are different between patients. Further assessment on IM should be pragmatic to balance between standardisation, reproducibility and real-world practice. Evidence-based IM programs and research should merge with existing infrastructure.

SUBMITTER: Chan KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7331247 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' and clinicians' expectations on integrative medicine Services for Diabetes: a focus group study.

Chan Kam Wa KW Lee Pak Wing PW Leung Crystal Pui Sha CPS Chan Gary Chi Wang GCW Yiu Wai Han WH Cheung Hoi Man HM Li Bin B Lok Sarah Wing Yan SWY Li Hongyu H Xue Rui R Chan Loretta Yuk Yee LYY Leung Joseph Chi Kam JCK Lam Tai Pong TP Lai Kar Neng KN Tang Sydney Chi Wai SCW

BMC complementary medicine and therapies 20200702 1

<h4>Background</h4>Difference of perspective between patients and physicians over integrative medicine (IM) research and service provision remains unclear despite significant use worldwide. We observed an exceptionally low utilisation of IM and potential underreporting in diabetes. We aimed to explore the barriers and recommendations regarding service delivery and research of IM service among diabetes patients and physicians.<h4>Methods</h4>A 10-group, 50-participant semi-structured focus group ...[more]

PMID: 32615961

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNorwegian general practitioners (GPs) are important stakeholders because they manage 80% of people on long-term sick-leave. Independent medical evaluation (IME) for long-term sick-listed patients is being evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial in one county in Norway in an effort to lower the national sick-leave rate (the NIME trial: Effect Evaluation of IME in Norway). The aim of the current study was to explore GPs' expectations of and experiences with IMEs.MethodsWe conducted three focus group interviews with a convenience sample of 14 GPs who had had 2-9 (mean 5) of their long-term sick-listed patients summoned to an IME. We asked them to recollect and describe their concrete expectations of and experiences with patients assigned to an IME. Systematic text condensation, a method for thematic cross-case analysis, was applied for analysis.ResultsTo care for and to reassure their assigned sick-listed patients, the participants had spent time and applied different strategies before their patients had attended an IME. The participants welcomed a second opinion from an experienced GP colleague as a way of obtaining constructive advice for further sick-leave measures and/or medical advice. However, they mainly described the IME reports in negative terms, as these were either too categorical or provided unusable advice for further follow-up of their sick-listed patients. The participants did not agree with the proposed routine use of IMEs but instead suggested that GPs should be able to select particularly challenging sick-listed patients for an IME, which should be performed by a peer.ConclusionOur participants showed positive attitudes towards second opinions but found the regular IMEs to be unsuitable. The participants did however welcome IMEs if they themselves could select particularly challenging patients for a mandatory second opinion by a peer but emphasized that IME-doctors should not be able to overrule a GP's sick-leave recommendation. These findings, together with other evaluations, will serve as a basis for the Norwegian government's decision on whether or not to implement IMEs for long-term sick-listed patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02524392 . Registered 23 June, 2015.

Project description:Understanding treatment expectations of patients and their clinicians is of great importance in improving personalized medical services and enhancing patient safety systems. To investigate treatment expectations of patients and their clinicians and compare differences between both, by using a pair of validated structured assessment tools covering three key aspects/dimensions of clinical interests. This single-center cross-sectional study was conducted at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in China. The study enrolled patients aged 16 years and older receiving inpatient care and their clinicians. Patient recruitment was conducted from March 2023 to November 2023. In addition to demographic and clinical characteristics, this study employed two validated structured assessment tools to evaluate treatment expectations among patients and their clinicians: the Hospitalized Patients' Expectations for Treatment Scale-Patient version (HOPE-P) and its counterpart, the Hospitalized Patients' Expectations for Treatment Scale-Clinician version (HOPE-C). A total of 233 patients (mean [SD] age, 52.3 [15.1] years; 108 [46.4%] female) along with their clinicians, who numbered 75 in total were enrolled in this study. The distribution of total scores for HOPE-P and HOPE-C displayed similar patterns, with most scores concentrated in the higher range (above 50% of the full score). The mean HOPE-P total score was higher than that of HOPE-C (mean [SD] score, 38.78 [4.86] vs 37.49 [4.32]; t = 3.12, P = 0.002). In Dimension 2, the HOPE-P score was higher than HOPE-C (23.67 [3.20] vs 21.72 [3.03]; t = 6.98, P < 0.001). However, in Dimensions 1 and 3, HOPE-P scored lower than HOPE-C (13.37 [2.44] vs 13.84 [1.73]; t = -2.384, P < 0.018; 1.74 [1.14] vs 1.94 [1.00]; t = -2.00, P = 0.047). Certain demographic and clinical characteristics led to variations in patients' treatment expectations, including marital status, monthly family income, and smoking history. This cross-sectional study revealed significant differences between patients' and doctors' treatment expectations. Notably, it highlighted the need for clinicians to focus on rationalizing patients' expectations concerning treatment outcomes. ChiCTR2300075262.

Project description:BackgroundThe rapid proliferation of health apps has not been matched by a comparable growth in scientific evaluations of their effectiveness, particularly for apps available to the public. This gap has prompted ongoing debate about the types of evidence necessary to validate health apps, especially as the perceived risk level varies from wellness tools to diagnostic aids. The perspectives of the general public, who are direct stakeholders, are notably underrepresented in discussions on digital health evidence generation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore public understanding and expectations regarding the evidence required to demonstrate health apps' effectiveness, including at varying levels of health risk.MethodsA total of 4 focus group discussions were held with UK residents aged 18 years and older, recruited through targeted advertisements to ensure demographic diversity. Participants discussed their views on evidence requirements for 5 hypothetical health apps, ranging from low-risk wellness apps to high-risk diagnostic tools. Focus groups were moderated using a structured guide, and data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to extract common themes.ResultsA total of 5 key themes were established: personal needs, app functionality, social approval, expectations of testing, and authority. Participants relied on personal experiences and social endorsements when judging the effectiveness of low-risk digital health interventions, while making minimal reference to traditional scientific evidence. However, as the perceived risk of an app increased, there was a noticeable shift toward preferring evidence from authoritative sources, such as government or National Health Service endorsements.ConclusionsThe public have a preference for evidence that resonates on a personal level, but also show a heightened demand for authoritative guidance as the potential risk of digital health interventions increases. These perspectives should guide developers, regulators, and policy makers as they balance how to achieve innovation, safety, and public trust in the digital health landscape. Engaging the public in evidence-generation processes and ensuring transparency in app functionality and testing can bridge the gap between public expectations and regulatory standards, fostering trust in digital health technologies.

Project description:Background: Pragmatic trials inform clinical decision with better generalizability and can bridge different streams of medicine. This study collated the expectations regarding pragmatic trial design of integrative medicine (IM) for diabetes and kidney diseases among patients and physicians. Dissonance between users' perspective and existing pragmatic trial design was identified. The association between risk of bias and pragmatism of study design was assessed. Method: A 10-group semi-structured focus group interview series [21 patients, 14 conventional medicine (ConM) and 15 Chinese medicine (CM) physicians] were purposively sampled from private and public clinics in Hong Kong. Perspectives were qualitatively analyzed by constant comparative method. A systematic search of four databases was performed to identify existing IM pragmatic clinical trials in diabetes or kidney disease. Primary outcomes were the pragmatism, risk of bias, and rationale of the study design. Risk of bias and pragmatism were assessed based on Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and PRECIS-2, respectively. The correlation between risk of bias and pragmatism was assessed by regression models with sensitivity analyses. Results: The subtheme on the motivation to seek IM service was analyzed, covering the perceived limitation of ConM effect, perceived benefits of IM service, and assessment of IM effectiveness. Patients expected IM service to retard disease progression, stabilize concomitant drug dosage, and reduce potential side effects associated with ConM. In the systematic review, 25 studies from six countries were included covering CM, Korean medicine, Ayurvedic medicine, and western herbal medicine. Existing study designs did not include a detailed assessment of concomitant drug change and adverse events. Majority of studies either recruited a non-representative proportion of patients as traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) diagnosis was used as inclusion criteria, or not reflecting the real-world practice of TCIM by completely dropping TCIM diagnosis in the trial design. Consultation follow-up frequency is the least pragmatic domain. Increase in pragmatism did not associate with a higher risk of bias. Conclusion: Existing IM pragmatic trial design does not match the patients' expectation in the analysis of incident concomitant drug change and adverse events. A two-layer design incorporating TCIM diagnosis as a stratification factor maximizes the generalizability of evidence and real-world translation of both ConM and TCIM.

Project description:BackgroundHealth checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks.MethodsIn 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government.ResultsParticipants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users.ConclusionsAssumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.

Dataset Information

Patients' and clinicians' expectations on integrative medicine Services for Diabetes: a focus group study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patients' and clinicians' expectations on integrative medicine Services for Diabetes: a focus group study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets